military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (11/18/89)
From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) [Posted anonymously at the author's request. - Bill ] ========== >>...An investigation revealed that all 5 had been using very hot loads, more >> than was recommended by Beretta. The General Services Admin. has required >> that Beretta retrofit all M9 units with a "slide catch device".... >> >> ...no plans to change the civilian 92F, and has no concerns about liability >> problems, because they feel the entire problem is a result of improper >> ammunition. I have real problems believing Beretta press releases & statements. Why would GSA require Beretta to fix the gun if it was an "ammo. problem"? Entirely due to "hot" loads? Then explain: The M9 was specified by the government to be compatible with the 9mm NATO STANAG, which specifies performance standards which *require* it to be "hot" enough to function submachine guns. While some "unknown" ammunition had been believed to have been fired through the five weapons, they were supposed to be able to withstand a steady diet of SMG-grade loads. The only ammunition that one could expect to find that would be "hotter" than SMG-loads would be "proof" loads. In a similar manner, let's not confuse ourselves by calling subsonic ammo. the offenting "hot" loads. While it is an easy mistake to make when you look *only* at the bullet weight, you are ignoring momentum & kinetic energy laws: when you back off a cartridge's velocity so as to make it subsonic, you virtually have to increase the bullet weight. If you don't, not only are you decreasing your lethality, but (more importantly) you're decreasing your weapon's operability because there may then be insufficient energy to cycle the weapon. Beretta's "hot ammo" explanation fails to explain how the government was able to fire M9's to destruction using only M882 NATO ammunition. It also fails to explain why there is a bimodal distribution to the number of rounds to failure (one group at <7K rds & one at >20K rds) ... and why the problem appears to be limited to one production period. Disclaimer: Standard+. I do not speak for my employer or anyone other than myself in an unofficial capacity and the above text represents only my opinion. To the best of my knowledge, the above represents unclassified and non-sensitive information; no information described herein has not been represented to me as being classified or sensitive or from FOUO or classified sources. I am not speaking as an authority on any subject. *Beware of Berreta proganda*