Is Being Different A Good Thing?

For almost two years I've been mildly interested in the sad tale of the Remington Arms Company's attempts to introduce an updated version of their early 20th century Model 51 pistol built around the Pedersen delayed blowback system ('hesitation-locked' as it's officially known). I won't go into details about how the recoil system operates other than to say it ain't your daddy's Browning-designed locking breech system. If you want more information you can check out the Remington Model 51's Wikipedia page. The Pedersen system to me appears to be an answer in search of a problem. But to be fair, Pedersen was a smart guy (and he actually worked for a time with John Browning), made a lot of contributions to firearms technology in the first half of the 20th century and his delayed blowback system worked quite well in the original Model 51, and it was a fairly popular pistol in its time.

Fast forward almost 100 years and Remington is struggling. It still makes great shotguns and bolt action rifles, but has largely missed out on the concealed carry pistol craze of the first decade and a half of the 21st century. In fact, Remington had zero pistol offerings of any type, and didn't really seem interested in playing in the market. It sat by and watched competitors like Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Glock, FN, Springfield Armory, Kimber, Kahr, Beretta, and even second tier manufacturers like Taurus and Kel-Tec and (gawd help us) High Point raked in truck loads of cash as consumers rushed to buy something - anything - with a hole in the barrel. Most of these makers were selling out their entire annual production within a few weeks of opening their order books at the start of each fiscal year. I'm just speculating here, but one of the things that likely caught the Remington execs' attention was the fact that an old line gun maker like Smith & Wesson was able to achieve dominance in the concealed carry market in large part by simply ramping up production of a 60 year old revolver design - the iconic J-Frame Airweight series. For several years running the S&W Model 642, a simple hammerless aluminum frame revolver in 38 Special, was the company's #1 seller. They couldn't make them fast enough. The little revolver was a cash cow for the once ailing company.

Maybe the Remington guys thought the way to break into the market was to introduce an updated version of a popular pistol the company used to make. After all, if it worked for S&W it should work for Remington, right? I'm guessing they took a look around their gun room and quickly lighted on the Model 51. The original models were well liked (and somewhat collectible), the design was unique - there wasn't another pistol being made that used the Pedersen delayed blowback system - and the gun could be scaled up to handle the more powerful 9mm cartridge.

Original Remington Model 51 in 380 ACP caliber

There was only one problem. Remington hadn't made a pistol in over 85 years. Sure, a company called Remington (actually Remington-Rand) made the bulk of the 1911A1 45 caliber pistols the US used from World War II through the 1990's, but that was a typewriter manufacturing company, spun off years earlier from the Remington Arms Company to maintain the 'purity' of the firearms side of the business. The gun maker Remington made its last conventional pistol, the Model 51, way back in 1927. I say 'conventional pistol' because for decades Remington made the XP-100 pistol, but that was little more than a shortened rifle action fitted to a plastic grip. It was a very successful design, but it was not a pistol in the conventional sense.

So we have a rifle and shotgun manufacturer with no institutional pistol design or manufacturing expertise deciding to produce a pistol based on a complex design dating back to World War I, a design that no other arms manufacturer has deemed reliable enough to put into production. What can go wrong? Well as Remington found out, plenty. Here's where the sad tale starts, and I'll just supply the Cliff Notes version:

• Remington announces the new R51 pistol at the 2014 SHOT Show in Las Vegas. The press is invited to shoot the available examples. Everybody's excited. The pistols seem to shoot well. The Pedersen design is unique in today's market and it represents a historic tie back to when Remington last manufactured handguns. The gun industry press begins its usual fawning. Soon the pistol is gracing the covers of virtually all the popular gun magazines and YouTube videos are popping up all over the internet praising the pistol

• Remington ships a limited number of pre-production R51s out to gun writers and internet celebrities for more extensive shooting sessions. Remington assures everyone that although these pistols are pre-production, they represent the final approved production design and the pistols soon to come off the line at their North Carolina plant will perform exactly the same as these T&E models. The fawning continues. Everyone is excited that America's oldest gun maker is getting back into the pistol business, and with a historically significant design that is not John Browning's

• Production pistols begin to make it out into the hands of the gun buying public and immediately problems crop up. Complaints of poor manufacturing quality, loose fitting parts (like sights that shift around in their dovetails!), inconsistent triggers, slides that are all but impossible to rack, poor accuracy and, worst of all, frequent reports of the pistols firing out of battery. The gun press stops its fawning and goes silent on the R51. The problems with the pistol are simply too obvious for even the most in-the-tank industry shill to ignore

• To Remington's great credit they stop production after the first few thousand pistols ship, acknowledge the problems and claim they are going to fix the QC issues and do a re-design to address some of the performance issues. The also make a very generous offer to those who had already purchased the R51 - Remington would either buy back their pistol for a full refund, let them trade their pistol for one of the new models when it ships, or let them trade the pistol for a new Remington R1911 pistol. This is in 2014 and Remington estimates it'll take about a year to get the problems ironed out and the re-designed pistols into production

• It actually takes Remington over two years to get things squared away. Part of the delay was due to moving production from North Carolina to Alabama. Finally a few weeks ago Remington announced the new pistols were shipping, first to those original buyers who had waited patiently for their replacement R51s and then to retailers. They were scheduled to be in dealers hands around August 12th. 

The Remington R51

Just earlier this week I was catching some of the internet chatter regarding the newly released pistol (now known as the 2nd Generation R51). A few folks who had received their replacement pistols were already posting YouTube videos. Reviews still seemed a bit mixed, but nobody was reporting the kinds of dangerous issues the first generation pistols exhibited. I told myself that if one ever appeared in my local gun range rental case I'd give it a try.

Well yesterday I went to the range and sitting there in the rental case was, surprise of surprises, a shiny new R51! The gal behind the counter said they got it just yesterday and it was unfired. I told her I'd be more than happy to put the first few rounds through it.

First impressions? The quality looked good. The fit and finish was well done. This is a sub-$500 pistol so we can't expect too much embellishment, but overall it looked nicely done. Visually it's an interesting pistol, sort of like a cross between a Walther PPK and Flash Gordon's ray gun. I think it works. I even like the 'reverse sloped' rear sight, which I think is actually a pretty good idea.The sights are the conventional 3-dot style and target acquisition is fast and easy. If you like Novaks you'll like these. The grip angle is good and the pistol points naturally. One of the features of the Pedersen design is that the recoil spring surrounds the barrel, allowing for a very low bore axis. The rear of the slide sits right at the web of your hand, and I'll talk more about that in just a moment.

2nd Generation R51. A nice looking pistol

Actually firing the pistol is a somewhat different experience compared to other hammer fired semi-autos. The R51 sports a very aggressive grip safety. I say aggressive because unlike the grip safety on a 1911-style pistol, where the simple act of gripping the pistol deactivates the grip safety, on the R51 you have to consciously squeeze the grip safety until you feel it click, and then you'll be able to pull the trigger. You can't just 'grip and pull' (the trigger), you have to 'grip, squeeze until click, then pull'. It is a very deliberate process to get on the grip safety and squeeze until it clicks.

Next is the trigger itself. It doesn't 'click' when the sear releases, instead it 'pops'. Other reviewers have noticed this too. It's hard to describe, but once you pull the trigger a few times you'll understand. It's as though the tripping of the sear is wrapped up in a series of other simultaneous mechanical events going on inside the pistol when the trigger is pulled, so you don't get the crisp 'click' of the release, instead you get a more ambiguous 'pop'. I'm not sure if this is directly related to the Pedersen design or just the way Remington designed the trigger mechanism and its relation to the grip safety. I'll just say that it's different.

Accuracy. In this department it's OK. Not bad, not great. But an accuracy evaluation at this point is unfair. I only put 30 rounds through the pistol, it was brand new and I was unfamiliar with it. I'll just say that it does show potential and I'm confident that if I shot it more and got used to the trigger I'd get much better groups. Here's how it does at 12 feet:

About a 4 inch center group at 12 feet

I should also add that while I only put 30 rounds through the R51, these were the first rounds fired through it since it left the factory and it was 100% reliable.

So does the somewhat unusual grip safety and trigger make R51 so odd that it is not a viable product in today's market? Well they shouldn't. The handgun market today is full of 'odd' examples that don't just work, but have succeeded spectacularly. Glock is the best example. It is also valid to point out that the R51's trigger and safety are much less different from a traditional Browning design semi-auto pistol than a 1911 is from a double action revolver. I think what I'm trying to say is that there's enough elbow room in today's handgun market for the R51 to gain some traction and succeed.

Yet, sadly, the pistol doesn't work for me. Let's get back to the low bore axis issue. While it is great for controlling recoil it puts the rear of the slide uncomfortably close to the web of the shooting hand. If you are like me and you have somewhat 'beefy' hands you are going to get slide bite, and it hurts.

No blood, but plenty of scraped skin. And yes, I'm a southpaw

Is the R51 worth taking a look at for concealed carry? I think so - but shoot one first to make sure you don't have the problem I encountered.

Would I ever own one? I think if Remington ever did a re-design of the frame to add a slight beavertail to protect the shooter's hand I'd go for it. It's a unique design that seems to work. As a firearms enthusiast and amateur historian I applaud Remington's efforts to bring the Pederson design back into production. I could see plunking down cash for one if they ever fix the damned slide bite issue.

Stay sharp!

- Brian

The Beretta M9 Is A Great Service Pistol, So Get Over It

I recently traded into a Beretta 92FS pistol. This is the commercial version of the pistol that 30 years ago became the US military's M9 service pistol. It has been almost 15 years since I handled or shot a Beretta 92/M9 and I figured I needed to reacquaint myself with the platform.

Beretta 92FS, the precursor to the M9 service pistol

I had the good fortune to be on active duty in the mid-80's when we traded in our M1911A1 pistols for the M9. In fact, by the time our units at Fort Lewis, WA received the first issue of M9 pistols around 1987 I'd had almost a decade of experience shooting the military issue M1911A1. I feel I'm in a perfect position to compare and contrast the two pistols

Let's start with the M1911A1, or the 'yankee fist' as many refered to it. I won't drag the readers down the well worn path that is the history of the M1911. We'll just cover the basics: 

• Invented by John M. Browning and considered by many to be his best handgun design
• Adopted by the US military in 1911 (hence the military desigination 'M1911') to replace the venerable (but badly out-dated) Colt SAA revolver 
• First saw wide battlefield service with US forces in WWI
• The design was modified in the 1920's based on input from Soldiers who used it during the Great War. The resultant pistol was dubbed the M1911A1 and it remained the standard US service pistol right up into the 1980's
• During WWII over 1 million M1911A1's were produced by Colt, Remington Rand, Ithica, Union Signal and Switch and Singer
• At the close of WWII the War Department decided it had more than enough M1911A1s to meet service demand and closed down the military production lines. The pistols produced during the war years continued to serve as the US standard service pistol through the Korean and Vietnam wars
• The M1911A1 was officially replaced as the US military's standard service pistol in 1985 when the Beretta M9 was adopted

M1911A1 in WWII factory packaging

I believe the M1911A1 was the best semi-auto service pistol in use anywhere in the world right up through the 1960's and the Vietnam War. No other service pistol could match it for reliability and knock-down power. But by the early 1970's it's design had been surpassed by a host of improvements in handgun technology. In addition the US Military's stock of general issue M1911's were simply worn out. After almost 30 years of service and three wars (WWII, Korea and Vietnam) the pistols were old, rattly and unreliable. Nobody shot them well. The sights were awful and the triggers even worse. By 1980 the venerable old warhorse was serving way past its retirement date and it was time for something new and improved.

Next let's look at the Beretta M9 pistol:

• Based on the Beretta 92, designed in 1975
• Saw initial but limited use with the US military in the hands of Navy SEALS starting in the late 1970's
• The Beretta 92 won the 1979 Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP) competition, beating out a number of competitors from Colt, S&W, SIG, H&K, Browning and a few others. The USAF ran the JSSAP competition and the Army griped about the outcome (they really didn't want to buy an Italian pistol) so the results were shelved
• In 1983 Congress put the Army in charge of a new selection program and told them to try again. Both the Beretta 92 and the SIG 226 beat all other competitors (including the M1911A1) and tied for the lead. Beretta submitted a much lower contract bid and won, fair and square
• Both S&W and Ruger bitched about the outcome of the 1983 trials so in 1989 Congress ordered a new trial. Once again the Beretta 92 (now designated the M9) came out the clear winner
• The M9 platform has seen almost continuous combat from 2003 to today, racking up an impressive combat record in the hands of all branches of the US Military

The Beretta M9 as adopted by the US military in 1985

So in three separate trials the Beretta 92/M9 beat all comers, including the beloved M1911A1. The DoD specified a minimum 8,000 round service life in the 1984 trials, yet in tests the M9 has shown to have a service life in excess of 30,000 rounds. The M1911A1 'control' pistols used by the DoD during the trials failed long before that point, most not even making it to the minimum 8,000 rounds. Yet folks in the shooting community and legions of Gunstore Commandos - and a good number of our Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors - bitch constantly about how the Beretta is in some way substandard.

Let's look at the gripes:

1. The Beretta family and/or the Italian government bribed Congress to adopt the pistol. This silly rumor has been kicking around since the mid-1980s and it's been investigated to death. While I don't discount the willingness of an occasional Congresscritter to take cash under the table to do a deal (Dan Rostenkowski, anyone?) this specific claim has been proven baseless. The pistol won the competition on its merits (and low bid price), not because Italians were delivering bags full of lira to the Congressional office buildings
2. The SIG P226 really won the competition but got undercut at the last minute when their best and final bid price was leaked to Beretta. Again, no basis in fact. SIG's US representative, SACO, blew the bid process by refusing to lower contract prices on things like magazines and spare parts, making their bid significantly higher than Beretta's
3. It's a 9mm. Yes it is, but don't blame Beretta. The DoD specified before the competition started that any pistol selected would be in the 9mm caliber. Beretta would have been happy to build pistols in 50 Action Express if that's what the competition requirements called for
4. It's got a weird trigger.  Really? What's weird about it? From the late 1970s through the 1990's the DA/SA trigger design was all the rage, and was considered a far better and far safer design than the M1911A1's single action design. S&W, Colt, Ruger, SIG, H&K, Walther, and a host of other manufacturers made millions of pistols using the DA/SA design, and EVERYBODY wanted one. The Beretta trigger happens to be one of the best DA/SA designs ever brought to market. It was only after Glock came along with the trigger with the little thingey in the middle that folks began to change
5. It's got a weird safety. The biggest gripe the 1911 partisans and Internet Commandos have about the M9 safety is that it's nothing like the M1911A1. Well OK, I agree - the M9 safety is nothing like the 1911's. That's because the M9's safety is better. There, I said it. As early as the late 1950's (when the Army started making noises about looking for a new pistol) it was recognized that the M1911A1 safety design was outdated and dangerous. That's why the Army mandated carrying the pistol hammer down but without a round in the chamber. Plus the safety lever was set up for right handed shooters only. The Beretta's ambidextrous decocker system provides an absolutely safe method of lowering the hammer on a loaded chamber and permitting perfectly safe carry with a round in the chamber. Far better than the M1911A1
6. It's got an open slide. The Beretta's open slide design was touted as an advantage over the competitor's fully enclosed slides. I remember sitting in on meetings where we were briefed on the benefits of the new pistol and the open slide design was praised for it's improved barrel cooling and resistance to crud build-up inside the slide. The resistance to getting clogged with sand was particularly emphasized. OK, in retrospect there may not be any real benefit other than reduced weight, but reports from the sandbox are that as long as you do routine maintenance on the pistol, to include removing any sand or grit that may have slipped through the slide and down into the dust cover, the pistols are as reliable and run just fine
7. It's got a fat grip. Yes it does, but it's not that fat. In fact, compared to something like the Glock 17 the grip is actually quite comfortable and manageable. I have medium-large hands and I find the grip quite comfortable. The real issue with the grip is the long reach to the DA trigger for those with medium or small hands. This can be alleviated by carrying the pistol with the safety off and the hammer cocked to the first notch, which brings the trigger back further in the trigger guard. Of course the Army frowns on this practice but if you are a civilian it's a perfectly safe way to carry the pistol.   
8. The slides break, killing people. Early in the service life of the pistol the Navy SEALS experienced precisely three (3) broken slides. On two occasions the slides broke completely into two pieces, with the rear section smacking the shooters in the face. One high speed-low drag operator suffered a broken tooth. That's the full extent of the human devastation caused by broken slides. Investigation revealed these were high round count pistols that were shooting waaaaaay out of spec high pressure ammo. When the Army heard about the incident they took three civilian spec 92SB pistols they had been testing and shot them until the slides failed. One pistol's slide let go at just over 20,000 rounds and the other two let go at over 30,000 rounds. Analysis of the broken slides revealed all had heat treatment problems. Beretta beefed up the slides around the locking block area and improved QC on the heat treating. This was back in 1988. Since then there have been zero instances of slides cracking or breaking on any M9 pistol. It simply hasn't been an issue for over 25 years of production and service. Time to drive a stake through the heart of this idiotic rumor
9. It wears out too fast. A pistol is a mechanical device that wears out with use, and it wears out faster if not maintained properly and even faster when used in environments where dust and sand is prevalent - like the Middle East. General issue weapons in the DoD inventory get minimal care and maintenance. Yes they get cleaned but they don't get maintained as well as they should. This means many of the M9 pistols that have seen up to 30 years of service, including 15 years of continuous wartime service in the hands of hundreds of service members, have been shot a lot but received minimal maintenance. As you would and should expect, they are worn out. Again, don't blame Beretta or the pistol's design. Blame a military that has seen an extraordinarily high OPTEMPO for the past 15 years in an environment that's known to accelerate wear on all mechanical devices, coupled with a reluctance to pull marginally serviceable weapons from the inventory
10. It's unreliable. Another Gunstore Commando rumor that refuses to die. Remember, in three separate reliability tests the Beretta tied for first place in one and beat all comers in the other two. Well, there was a point during the GWOT where the Beretta pistols the Army owned were exhibiting a surprisingly high number of malfunctions, But again it wasn't Beretta's fault or the fault of the pistol. It was magazines. Specifically, non-manufacturer spec magazines that were built to a badly flawed Army contract specification. After years of active combat the Army was running out of M9 magazines. The Beretta-produced magazines were of excellent quality, but they were wearing out at an alarming rate with years of service in a very sandy/dusty environment. The Army needed a lot of replacement magazines, and needed them fast. To save a few bucks they awarded a contract to a third party (but very reputable) US-based magazine manufacturer named Check-Mate. In an effort to try to extend the service life of the magazines the Army contract stipulated that both the outside and the inside of the magazine bodies were to receive a phosphate coating. When Beretta and Check-Mate read the contract requirement they both notified the Army that the coating on the interior of the magazine body would cause ammunition feeding problems. The Army refused to budge and told Check-Mate that either they comply with the contract as written or it would be taken from them and given to one of their competitors. Check-Mate complied, delivered the magazines and things started to go south from there. Army Soldiers in combat started to report multiple malfunctions, mainly failure to feed issues. Of course they blamed the M9 in general as being unreliable, but the issue was very quickly traced to the phosphate coating on the inside of the magazines. In fact, both Beretta and Check-Mate had told the Army to expect this to happen. The rough textured coating on the inside of the magazine body was trapping sand and grit, which interfered with the smooth operation of the magazine follower causing malfunctions. This problem triggered a nationwide shortage of Beretta factory magazines for the 92-series pistols as friends and family members of Soldiers snapped up every available magazine to send to their loved ones fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army quickly realized its mistake and revised the contract spec to require a dry lube coating on the inside of the magazine. Once all of the phosphate coated Check-Mate magazines were pulled from service the reliability problems went away. It should be noted that the USMC, fighting in many of the same regions and often right alongside Army units, continued to use Beretta-manufactured magazines and continued to enjoy excellent reliability out of the M9
11. It's not a 1911. This is the zinger of last resort that any Gunstore Commando will throw down when losing an argument about service pistols. It's usually delivered with a dismissive wave of the hand as they walk away from the argument, firm in the belief that their logic is unassailable. Sort of like a liberal shouting "you're raaaaacist!" when you bring up the black-on-black murder rate in Chicago. No Virginia, the M9 is not the M1911A1. It's actually better. Now remember, we can't compare the M9 to your Ed Brown Classic Series 1911. We have to compare service pistol to service pistol, and the M9 proved in three separate DoD tests that it handily beats the WWII-era M1911A1 in every evaluation category. A lot of 1911 partisans argue that if - just if - an updated 1911 design had been included in the trials it would have wiped the floor with all the pretenders to the throne. Maybe, Maybe not. We'll never know. You can't run an Indy race against a car that doesn't show up at the starting line

For more information on the procurement controversy go read the Government Accounting Office's 1986 report 'Allegations on Army Selection of Beretta 9-mm as DoD Standard Sidearm'

________________________________________________________

Does the M9 have some flaws? Of course it does, but the 'flaws' are not shortcomings in the pistol's basic design but shortcomings that have cropped up as firearms and accessory technology has progressed over the past 30 years.

In my eyes the current M9 design has two major shortcomings. First is the lack of an adjustable/replacable front sight. The second is the lack of an accessory rail (also referred to as a 'Picatinny' rail). Remember, the standard M9 reflects a design that was locked in-place in 1985, before the advent of Tritium night sights and small, powerful weapons lights.

While the rear sight on the M9 is 'drift adjustable' (that's gunsmith speak for the need to smack the thing with a hammer and drift punch to adjust the point of aim), the front sight is actually an integral part of the slide and is neither replaceable or adjustable. That was OK in 1985 when we were just thankful to be moving away from the awful sights found on the M1911A1, but today that design simply isn't good enough. In my opinion every pistol issued to an American Soldier should have replaceable Tritium night sights. You simply can't provide that with the current design of the M9.

Next, the accessory rail. In 1985 nobody had even heard of a thing called a weapon light. If you needed to light up a target at night you usually used a hand held flashlight. Then in the 1990s companies like SureFire and Streamlight started developing small, lightweight high intensity lights that could be mounted below the barrel on the dust cover. This first resulted in a bunch of goofy clip-on rail systems but then swiftly led to manufacturers incorporating a standard accessory rail into their pistol designs. Today it's almost impossible to buy a newly manufactured pistol that does not have an accessory rail built in, but the M9 design is still stuck in 1985.

Enter the Marine Corps. While the US Army developed only a grudging respect for the M9, the USMC seems to have fallen in love with it. The average Marine spends far more time than the average Soldier on the range and is therefore more familiar with, and in tune with, his or her duty weapon. I'm told the USMC also pays much more attention to weapons maintenance than the Army does, and is more aggressive in replacing worn parts like recoil springs. As a result the USMC has gotten better service out of their M9s. But they too recognized the ageing design of the pistol. In 2010 the USMC contracted directly with Beretta for a redesigned M9 that incorporated an accessory rail, a re-configured trigger guard, three-dot sights, some polymer parts to save weight and improved 'sand resistant' magazines. Designated the M9A1, it is scheduled to replace all standard M9 pistols in the Marine Corps inventory. Surprisingly, the M9A1 still retains the integral front sight, so good luck trying to fit Tritium sights.

USMC M9A1

The M9A1 is a logical upgrade to the 1985-era M9 but no other branch of service has shown interest in it. The reason for this lack of interest is called the Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition.

Around 2008 the Army and Air Force decided that the M9 design had reached the end of its service life and it was time to look for a new service pistol. Since 1985 handgun technology has undergone a number of key improvements. The most visible change has been the emergence of the polymer framed, striker fired designs like the Glock. Pistols like the Glock 17 and the Smith & Wesson M&P line absolutely dominate the American law enforcement market, from local police agencies all the way up to the FBI and have even found strong acceptance in limited roles within the US military.

So the two services are keenly interested in adopting a standard service pistol that is striker fired, has a polymer frame, improved safeties and offers easier maintenance. After several fits and starts, in 2014 the DoD announced the kick-off of the selection program for what they call a Modular Handgun System (MHS). Beretta quickly figured out that any re-configuration of the M9 design would not meet 100% of the MHS minimum criteria. So Beretta tried an end-around move to bypass the MHS competition and offered the Army a radically re-designed model of the M9 called the M9A3.

Beretta got smart with this redesign and takes the original 92-based platform as far as it can go. The M9A3 incorporates a true M1913 'Picatinny' accessory rail, Tritium front and rear sights, a supressor-ready barrel, minor changes to the decocker safety and a recontoured grip. The frame of the pistol is still aluminum alloy, but Beretta re-engineered it to accept different sized grips and backstraps. At first Beretta tried to sell the M9A3 to the Army under the existing M9 contract, claiming the changes were allowed under the 'minor engineering changes' clause. The Army said no, deciding that the changes were too radical to be considered 'minor'.

But Beretta's not giving up, and apparently has a plan that just might work. As the MHS tests move forward Beretta is putting the M9A3 into limited production for civilian sales. Even limited production proves that the company can ramp up to volume production if the orders pour in. Next, Beretta is willing to play a watch and wait game. Even though the MHS program will eventually pick a winner Beretta knows the US military is in the draw down mode and money may not be available to field the selected pistol. This puts Beretta in a good position to step forward and tell Congress that it has a ready replacement for the M9 that meets 85% of the MHS requirements and offers near 100% compatibility with existing DoD service pistol support systems (training materials, spare parts, holsters, maintenance tools, etc.). Who knows, Beretta may just pull it off!

________________________________________________________

So 30 years on two things are clear. First, the M9 has received limited respect from those who carry it. To be honest I think the pistol was somewhat doomed from the beginning simply because it was replacing the venerable and beloved M1911A1. NO pistol other than an updated 1911 could have overcome that hurdle. The rumored failures I outlined above gained so much traction that they are impossible to control or squelch. When a Soldier going in to combat is handed a perfectly serviceable M9 all he/she has heard are the barracks rumors fueled by all the drivel out on the internet. What he/she doesn't hear is the truth.

The second thing that's clear to me is that the M9 was the best pistol selected in the 1985 trials and has proven to be an outstanding service pistol. It's real failures are few, and dozens - perhaps hundreds - of service men and women are alive today thanks to the M9's ruggedness and reliability in some of the worst combat conditions imaginable. It's a pistol I'd unhesitatingly carry in to combat if I had to go today.

Stay sharp!

- Brian