Most over rated or over hyped pistol?
- Thread starter bernse
- Start date
- Location
- Alberta land of many guns
Don't quote me here but a solid rumor that's been circulating for any years now indicates that Sig was passed over as the next service pistol because Sig didn't have a manufacturing plant in the U.S. and had no plans on buliding one. If that's not political......
CF
CF
- Location
- FREE ALBERTA
Glock +1000 000 000
- Location
- FREE ALBERTA
Don't quote me here but a solid rumor that's been circulating for any years now indicates that Sig was passed over as the next service pistol because Sig didn't have a manufacturing plant in the U.S. and had no plans on buliding one. If that's not political......
CF
More to the point the lease was up on the USA navel base in Italy
CF
More to the point the lease was up on the USA navel base in Italy
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
What is a 'solid rumour'? 
- Location
- Newfoundland
I also have to put a vote in for the glock as an over hype . the few I've had a chance to use have all left me flat. I seem to grip them wrong due to large hands and when I fire it the recoil seem to cause me to hit the mag release causing it to either drop out or slip and cause a stoppage .
Second for hype would be Ruger Semi's
Third would be older model Taruses !!!
Just my .02
Second for hype would be Ruger Semi's
Third would be older model Taruses !!!
Just my .02
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
It's not a rumour, it's a certain fact, Beretta USA had a plant in Maryland making the .25 and .32 pistols, Sauer didn't have anything at the time. Part of the M9 contract was that the majority of the guns had to be made in the US. Sauer originally planned on using the Saco plant in Maine, but Beretta already had a plant, so that helped them. SIG Arms in New Hampshire didn't open until 1990, which was seven years later.
Two of the other reasons why the Beretta was chosen was that Beretta's bid was more comprehensive, Saco only put in a bid for x pistols at a certain price, but Beretta included a more comprehensive parts package. The other reason why is that frankly the P226 was an inferior pistol to the Beretta 92 back then. The 92 came out in 1975 and was a more perfected design during the XM9 trials. The P226s used in the XM9 trials were prototype pistols. In fact the first prototypes used Beretta 92 magazines. The early P226s had serious problems with the frame cracking.
All of this stuff you read about Beretta getting the contract through political connections, etc. is just belly-aching from American gun owners sore at the .45 being replaced. S&W actually sued over the M9 contract, and it was proven in court that these stories were BS. They did get the competition run again, but Beretta won again, because frankly the S&W 59 was and is #### compared to the Beretta. The P226 was better by that point but still not as good. The Ruger P85 was also entered, and was also found wanting, not to my great surprise, having shot one of the prototypes.
The slide failures of the Beretta were also traced to Olin making lots of M882 ball that was overpressure, and this was proved in testing at Elgin AFB, and the DoD actually had to compensate Beretta USA for the changes made to the design of the 92F when they put in the enlarged hammer pin that became the 92FS. But you never read about that in American gun magazines.
The Beretta was simply the best 9mm pistol at the time that met the contract requirements (the Glock being excluded as it wasn't DA and had no external safety device). Unfortunately lots of whittering American gun writers who can't accept reality fail to grasp this.
Two of the other reasons why the Beretta was chosen was that Beretta's bid was more comprehensive, Saco only put in a bid for x pistols at a certain price, but Beretta included a more comprehensive parts package. The other reason why is that frankly the P226 was an inferior pistol to the Beretta 92 back then. The 92 came out in 1975 and was a more perfected design during the XM9 trials. The P226s used in the XM9 trials were prototype pistols. In fact the first prototypes used Beretta 92 magazines. The early P226s had serious problems with the frame cracking.
All of this stuff you read about Beretta getting the contract through political connections, etc. is just belly-aching from American gun owners sore at the .45 being replaced. S&W actually sued over the M9 contract, and it was proven in court that these stories were BS. They did get the competition run again, but Beretta won again, because frankly the S&W 59 was and is #### compared to the Beretta. The P226 was better by that point but still not as good. The Ruger P85 was also entered, and was also found wanting, not to my great surprise, having shot one of the prototypes.
The slide failures of the Beretta were also traced to Olin making lots of M882 ball that was overpressure, and this was proved in testing at Elgin AFB, and the DoD actually had to compensate Beretta USA for the changes made to the design of the 92F when they put in the enlarged hammer pin that became the 92FS. But you never read about that in American gun magazines.
The Beretta was simply the best 9mm pistol at the time that met the contract requirements (the Glock being excluded as it wasn't DA and had no external safety device). Unfortunately lots of whittering American gun writers who can't accept reality fail to grasp this.
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
John Sukey said:
Any FMJ pistol round of any calibre is a marginal stopper, IMO. If you actually look at either .45 or 9mm FMJ wound channels in ballistic gelatin, there's nothing much to choose between them. .45 goes through four feet, 9mm goes through five feet, in a straight line. The only difference really is the hole the .45 makes is 2.43mm larger in diameter.
I've spoken to old soldiers over the years who all thought the SMG was a pretty worthless stopper except at very close range where you can get multiple hits on a person.
Given the choice I think I'd go with the 9mm pistol, simply because it holds more rounds.
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
IM_Lugger said:
Yeah, I agree, and largely because of all the snivelling by American gun writers. If the P226 had been adopted, right now everyone would be pissing and moaning about those. I've seen several comments on here that are simply wrong - cracked slides? How many cracked slides has anyone honestly seen on 92s that weren't caused by using dodgy ammo? Durability at 10,000 rounds? Bull####, I personally put 22,000 rounds through a 92F (D40546Z) before there was any significant wear on it, and that was on the frame, not the slide or locking block. Even then, it was still going strong. And this included a lot of rapid fire and hot ammo too. And vague hints about political deals and crap like that have been proven wrong, in US Federal court no less.
I still think the P226 is a slightly better gun now out-of-the-box (back in 1983 it wasn't), it has a better trigger pull, and the sights are easier to adjust and easier to see, and it's also less bulky, but to say the 92 is a POS is nonsense.
Ernest Langdon I thought put that notion to rest a long time ago.
I only wish Beretta USA were more active in suing people for libel for writing crap in US gun magazines about them. They have threatened a couple of people, I wish they'd actually follow through but I suppose that could backfire if they ever want to get a good gun review again.
- Location
- Alberta land of many guns
Agilent one, Sigarms did have a facility but did not begin producing guns until 1990 (that's right off their website).
CF
CF
US contract requirements for the M9 have nothing to do with the parameters
most of us (esp. Canadians) use to decide which firearm we want to purchase.
The Marksmanship unit of the U.S. Army has targets of a typical new M9
from ransomrest at 50 yards. They average 10-12 inches. After 10-15
hours of tuning/tightening and match barrels, their gunsmiths can get
them down to 2 inches. These match grade M9s are used by their team
for competition shooting. They also don't remain tuned for long and
soon loose their ability to hold X-ring on the NRA Slowfire 50 yard
target. This keeps them busy supporting their just the BE shooting
team.
Out of box accuracy is not a concern of the M9 requirement. This is a
side arm/service gun, requirement is reliability and interchangability
which to me means a looser fit and tolerance.
A good match pistol is hand fitted, its slide and barrel cannot be randomly
mixed up with 100 other examples, reassembled and expected to work
let alone hold its accuracy. One of the M9 requirements is just this test.
I have had occassion to use various 92FS. These guns are every bit as
tight and acccurate as the plain jane P226. We are buying for ourselves,
not for a LE department or the entire service batch.
If a 92FS doesn't fit your hand, you don't need to justify not for buying
it at the range to your buddies. Same goes for any other gun or any
other manufacturer.
The good guns are the one you can shoot. The best gun is the one
you can shoot to win at matches. Over rated guns are the ones you
own that you cannot shoot - soon to leave your collection.
most of us (esp. Canadians) use to decide which firearm we want to purchase.
The Marksmanship unit of the U.S. Army has targets of a typical new M9
from ransomrest at 50 yards. They average 10-12 inches. After 10-15
hours of tuning/tightening and match barrels, their gunsmiths can get
them down to 2 inches. These match grade M9s are used by their team
for competition shooting. They also don't remain tuned for long and
soon loose their ability to hold X-ring on the NRA Slowfire 50 yard
target. This keeps them busy supporting their just the BE shooting
team.
Out of box accuracy is not a concern of the M9 requirement. This is a
side arm/service gun, requirement is reliability and interchangability
which to me means a looser fit and tolerance.
A good match pistol is hand fitted, its slide and barrel cannot be randomly
mixed up with 100 other examples, reassembled and expected to work
let alone hold its accuracy. One of the M9 requirements is just this test.
I have had occassion to use various 92FS. These guns are every bit as
tight and acccurate as the plain jane P226. We are buying for ourselves,
not for a LE department or the entire service batch.
If a 92FS doesn't fit your hand, you don't need to justify not for buying
it at the range to your buddies. Same goes for any other gun or any
other manufacturer.
The good guns are the one you can shoot. The best gun is the one
you can shoot to win at matches. Over rated guns are the ones you
own that you cannot shoot - soon to leave your collection.
cybershooters said:
Well at my range in particular the Beretta's fail with amazing regularity. I have a box of cracked slides. I have only ever had one SIG slide fail. We only use Winchester Winclean in them, which you might consider dodgy, but seems to do ok in the other guns and in particular the SIGs.
Steve David
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Oshawa, Ontario
Clearly everything we have mentioned over the last 10 pages. In my humble opinion, the 1911 is the clear winner of the most over rated gun, especially to the south of us. Great gun, great legacy, widely used, endless amount of parts and modifications, but for f*#k's sake, it is on 90% of the covers of every gun magazine every month, for the last 50 years. I am sick and tired of "The Ultimate 1911" first it's Wilson Combat, then Les Baer, then Kimber, then Springfield, then S&W, then all those esoteric custom shops. Enough of the 1911 now.
I'm sure you're right about sound reasons for choosing 9mm to replace the .45, but you have to admit that the symmetry of switch in that period just seemed suspicious. You start with the U.S. using 5.56 and the rest of NATO using 7.62 for rifles, and the U.S. using .45 and the rest of NATO using 9mm for pistols. Then you end up in short order with everybody using 5.56 for rifles (the U.S. gets their way) and 9mm for pistols (the U.S. compromise for getting their way). It was a good conspiracy theory, and made me wonder I must admit. Even though they had good reasons for making the switch, .45ACP and 1911 afficianados and traditionalists just have a hard time believing they'd give up the "perfect" handgun and round for that European 9mm!
