anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) (01/04/90)
From: munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) Is it true that the 1911A1 .45 has been replaced by the Italian Beratta 92F ? The Beratta having a 15 rounds magazine would surely make the grip larger and therefore harder to handle then the 1911A1. What's the advantages of Beratta to the 1911A1 ? -- Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:(+617) 3712651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (+617) 3774139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (01/05/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <12753@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) writes: > > >From: munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) > >Is it true that the 1911A1 .45 has been replaced by the Italian Beratta >92F ? The Beratta having a 15 rounds magazine would surely make the >grip larger and therefore harder to handle then the 1911A1. What's the >advantages of Beratta to the 1911A1 ? > It is very true. Reasons for the replacement? Most importantly was NATO unity/commonality. Almost every other major military force used a 9mm round. Second, although the M1911A is a great weapon it is a 70 year old design. There has been many new developments in that time. A third reason probably was the 15 round magazine. If you are going to need a pistol, you probably will want LOTS of bullets to make up for the lack of range, etc. Even with a 15 round staggered magazine, the grip is not uncomfortable. I have a pre-military version of the Beratta 92 and it even fits my wife's small hands. The single advantage I can see over the M1911A is the disassembly. The M1911A required some coordinated manuvers to get it together, the Beratta is rather simple. I won't get into the dispute over 9mm vs .45. I imagine that there was some political factors in the decision as well. The American manufactors continually cried foul during both rounds of testing. Yes they had to do it over because the first round wasn't fair, and if I remember right no weapon on earth could have met the requirements (I guess the army wanted the M1911A also :-). Compare that with testing for the M1911A. Two army officers walked into a slaughter house with the pistols and emerged with the chosen weapon :-). -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling) (01/05/90)
From: rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling) Yes, the new Army service side arm is the Beretta 92F. Grip circumference of the Beretta is larger than that of the Colt Government Model, but I've uniformly heard its a comfortable shooter. Good pistol ergonomics go beyond just grip diameter to include grip contour, grip texture, pistol balance and recoil characteristics. Now I have a question: what were the selection criteria for the service sidearm that favored the Beretta? I know caliber, cost and capacity entered into it. But if the factors of weight, reliability and simplicity of use were also important, why was the Glock 17 not chosen? I believe Glock has, or is planning to, open a factory in the States, so availability isn't an issue. I would image that, especially for a gun with so little machining and so few parts as the Glock, that large volumes translate to far less cost to the DoD. Was it the polymer components that put off traditionalists? Or did the Army want something heavy enough to double as a club :-)? -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rod Sprattling DialCom: 8*833-7054 sprattlingrl@crd.ge.com rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com uunet!crd.ge.com!sprattlingrl You can appreciate the difference between dedication and commitment whenever you see a plate of ham and eggs: The hen was dedicated. The pig was committed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dave "bd" Hsu) (01/06/90)
From: hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dave "bd" Hsu) In article <12814@cbnews.ATT.COM> rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling) writes: >... why was the Glock 17 >not chosen? I believe Glock has, or is planning to, open a factory >in the States, so availability isn't an issue. I would image that, >especially for a gun with so little machining and so few parts as >the Glock, that large volumes translate to far less cost to the DoD. I suspect that Glock's offshore origins at the time had much to do with it. Although they're now manufactured in Smyrna, GA, at the time of the competition, Glock had no US-based manufacturing operations. Beretta had been operating their factory in Accokeek, MD for some time, and thus enjoyed the backing of Maryland's legislators. As to the points you raise, I think the free market says it all. Glock 17s sell for less than 2/3 the cost of the 92F, have an unequalled reputation for durability earned at rental firing ranges, and are regularly praised by reviewers for their uniform if peculiar trigger action and high out-of-the-box accuracy. It seems to me that the closed slide and lack of an external hammer _should_ be advantages in "dirty" environments as well. -dave -- Dave Hsu UMd EE Computer Facility hsu@eng.umd.edu "We must beware of needless innovations, especially when guided by logic." - Churchill
terryr@cse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (01/08/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <12814@cbnews.ATT.COM> rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling) writes: > >Now I have a question: what were the selection criteria for the >service sidearm that favored the Beretta? I know caliber, cost and >capacity entered into it. But if the factors of weight, reliability >and simplicity of use were also important, why was the Glock 17 >not chosen? I believe Glock has, or is planning to, open a factory There were several reasons if I remember correctly. First, this competition was several years ago (1980-2 or thereabouts), at that time the Glock was a novelty with little performance record. Second, there were some strict requirements about double action and a certain type of safety. As I recall there were problems with one or both of these requirements caused by the unique design of the Glock. Supporters of the Glock clain it was better than any other pistol offered, so it might have been a problem with a technicality. This all was a long time ago and I'm working from memory. The Glock may not have even been entered in the first competition it was so new. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu