Beretta M9A3 Is this modular enough?

[gtmtnbiker98]

http://www.beretta.com/en-us/beretta-usa-presents-next-generation-handgun-to-the-department-of-defense/

[Kyle Reese]

Needs to be in the G configuration, IMHO.

[JV_]

Or easily converted to G, like the PX4.

[TCinVA]

I wouldn't assume that the only changes on that weapon are external, gentlemen...;)

[Timbonez]

They did mention that there were some improvements on small parts, but I wonder if this just means the guide rod and buffer a la the 92A1/96A1. If so, I think it's a bad idea. You lose the logistics of parts, slide, and frame interchangeability with legacy M9s. Anyway, I hope it's something different from that, like adamantium locking blocks. I agree it should be a G configuration, but it probably won't be because it's the military.

I like the vertec grip, dovetailed night sights, and rail. I wouldn't mind carrying this when I fly deployed, although the I can't imagine I'd be using a light on the rail.

[Suvorov]

This thread makes me happy!

[WobblyPossum]

If they release a G version it will be my perfect Beretta.

[El Cid]

I don't understand the slide mounted safety. I presume the MHS requires a manual safety. But why on earth would they not use their frame mounted design??

[JTQ]

Because they don't have a frame mounted version anymore?

[El Cid]

Because they don't have a frame mounted version anymore?

It's not like they don't have the plans or know-how. They made the SAO model as recently as a few years ago I believe. Sig added a frame mounted safety to the p320 for this contract. Just strikes me as odd given that a slide mounted safety is one of the biggest gripes of the M9 I've heard. When I was in the Air Force we were not allowed to use it for anything but decocking the pistol. The safety was too difficult for too many to reach.

[shootist26]

I saw a pic of this at some convention earlier this year. Remember reading here that the safety lever was redesigned to make it harder to accidently put on safe. The picture had the lever in some weird intermediate position...couldn't tell if it was supposed to be like that or not.

[opmike]

I don't understand the slide mounted safety. I presume the MHS requires a manual safety. But why on earth would they not use their frame mounted design??

This is the same company that stopped production for years on the Brig, Vertec, Elite II, 92G-SD, etc., teased with extremely limited-run frame mounted safety models like the Steel, Stock, and Combat, but felt it wise to come out with the 90-TWO and PX4. Oh, and the G decocker and dovetail front sight isn't standard across their lineup...in 2014. Beretta is anything but a "rational agent" in a lot of their decisions.

[5pins]

I don’t think this is for the new contract proposal.


The improvements include design and material enhancements resulting in increased modularity, reliability, durability, and ergonomics. They are being submitted via an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) in accordance with the terms of the current M9 contract.


Sounds to me like an end-run around the new contract by showing that they can bring the DoD a pistol what they want with a simple modification to the existing contract.

[RJ]

I don’t think this is for the new contract proposal.



Sounds to me like an end-run around the new contract by showing that they can bring the DoD a pistol what they want with a simple modification to the existing contract.

Could be. The way my contracts (USAF) work, I'd have to respond to a Request for Proposal, then submit an ECP.

It may also be that the M9 contract language allows for an unsolicited ECP.

Either way, they absolutely want to be in this race.

[JSGlock34]

I saw a pic of this at some convention earlier this year. Remember reading here that the safety lever was redesigned to make it harder to accidently put on safe. The picture had the lever in some weird intermediate position...couldn't tell if it was supposed to be like that or not.

I had posted this in the uber-Beretta (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?7408-Beretta-92-FS-Compact-(and-general-Beretta-love-lately)/page76) thread but I'll repeat here...

I remember a few months back this pistol appeared at AUSA and was reportedly a M9A3 prototype.

http://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2881&d=1418866675

Clearly not a Vertec frame in this iteration. Grips appear to be a G10 golfball. But the FDE finish, threaded barrel and dovetailed front sight is there. Some information indicated that this pistol used the 92A1 captured recoil spring and buffer, and also incorporated a redesigned safety that went above 90 degrees in order to prevent the weapon from being place accidentally 'on-safe' while clearing a malfunction. I'm curious if any of these features found their way into the M9A3 that Beretta USA just announced.

Interesting move by Beretta to introduce this under an Engineering Change Proposal - conceivably these could enter the force prior to the MHS selection?

[Robinson]

I'm curious as to what Beretta users think of the straight vs. arched backstrap / MHS ?

[GardoneVT]

Let me know when the funding document drops for greater 9mm training ammo allocation.

So long as Granny PistolClass outshoots a military support troop, the finish and frame of the service pistol is pointless.

[JTQ]

When I was in the Air Force we were not allowed to use it for anything but decocking the pistol. The safety was too difficult for too many to reach.
I suspect practically nobody uses the safety/decocker for anything other than a decocker.

Reaching it isn't a big deal since you are usually decocking at ground speed zero rather than needing to operate it as a safety (like a 1911) at speed.

[Lomshek]

Just strikes me as odd given that a slide mounted safety is one of the biggest gripes of the M9 I've heard. When I was in the Air Force we were not allowed to use it for anything but decocking the pistol. The safety was too difficult for too many to reach.


I suspect practically nobody uses the safety/decocker for anything other than a decocker.

Reaching it isn't a big deal since you are usually decocking at ground speed zero rather than needing to operate it as a safety (like a 1911) at speed.

It's not that hard with some (very little) quality training on proper methods of working the lever but then quality training and military handgun aren't exactly a common pairing.

[Jeep]

Let me know when the funding document drops for greater 9mm training ammo allocation.

So long as Granny PistolClass outshoots a military support troop, the finish and frame of the service pistol is pointless.

Training ammo, Gardone? Training ammo? Get a grip on yourself! Next you'll be saying that the purpose of the military is not to be a uniformed version of the Peace Corps or that money should go to training rather than "green energy" projects that are run by large contributors to the party in power.

We won't be getting a new pistol (though perhaps someone will agree to take this as a substitute for the M9 if it really is cheaper) any time in the near future. And we certainly won't increase the amount of training ammunition when we aren't officially fighting a war (though for some reason the HQ of the 1st ID is now in Baghdad).

[LHS]

I'm curious as to what Beretta users think of the straight vs. arched backstrap / MHS ?

I hate the Vertec frame. I have big hands, and the standard-size 92 frame fits me like a glove, even with the thick LG302 laser grips on it. That said, if they figured out a way to put out a Vertec frame with grip panels that included a humped back strap to reproduce the standard frame contours, that would be a pretty slick idea.

I know a lot of folks with smaller hands loved the Vertec frame, and even I have to admit it's a great idea, provided you include the modularity I mentioned above.

And yeah, I've heard rumblings about some internal changes that make me salivate and think that, at long last, someone at Beretta has managed to pull their head out of their ass and recognize reality.

[Edwin]

Small grip? I'm out. I have it worse than LHS where the standard grip is too small. Hopefully the internal changes makes its way to standard size frames.

[LangdonTactical]

So I have been involved in this project for quite some time. A couple of key points that you all should know.

1. It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.
2. As of now it will not have the internal frame buffer like the 92A1.
3. It will have an over mold type back strap that will mimic the standard Beretta frame size.
4. It will have checkering on the frame and beveled mag well like the M9A1.
5. Extended Mag button.

There are some other details but I think this is the important stuff that you guys wanted to know.

Cheers,

Ernest

[Kyle Reese]

So I have been involved in this project for quite some time. A couple of key points that you all should know.

1. It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.
2. As of now it will not have the internal frame buffer like the 92A1.
3. It will have an over mold type back strap that will mimic the standard Beretta frame size.
4. It will have checkering on the frame and beveled mag well like the M9A1.
5. Extended Mag button.

There are some other details but I think this is the important stuff that you guys wanted to know.

Cheers,

Ernest

Outstanding, Ernest! Thanks for the info.

[El Cid]

I suspect practically nobody uses the safety/decocker for anything other than a decocker.

Reaching it isn't a big deal since you are usually decocking at ground speed zero rather than needing to operate it as a safety (like a 1911) at speed.

Every Marine I know had to keep the safety on with a loaded chamber. Several Army types had the safety on with an empty chamber. Of course I've been out of uniform for over 8 years now so things may have changed.

[JTQ]

Every Marine I know had to keep the safety on with a loaded chamber. Several Army types had the safety on with an empty chamber. Of course I've been out of uniform for over 8 years now so things may have changed.
Valid point, as this is designed as an issue gun, and one must do what regulations require. I believe you are correct the USAF was the only branch that doesn't require carry with the safety engaged.

However, my comment was towards civilian use. I don't know why one would carry a TDA auto with the safety engaged unless required by regulation.

[gtmtnbiker98]

So I have been involved in this project for quite some time. A couple of key points that you all should know.

1. It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.
2. As of now it will not have the internal frame buffer like the 92A1.
3. It will have an over mold type back strap that will mimic the standard Beretta frame size.
4. It will have checkering on the frame and beveled mag well like the M9A1.
5. Extended Mag button.

There are some other details but I think this is the important stuff that you guys wanted to know.

Cheers,

Ernest

This may cause me to spend some money in 2015.

[stimpee]

So I have been involved in this project for quite some time. A couple of key points that you all should know.

1. It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.
2. As of now it will not have the internal frame buffer like the 92A1.
3. It will have an over mold type back strap that will mimic the standard Beretta frame size.
4. It will have checkering on the frame and beveled mag well like the M9A1.
5. Extended Mag button.

There are some other details but I think this is the important stuff that you guys wanted to know.

Cheers,

Ernest


^^^^^

Listen to this guy...

;)

[1986s4]

I just got a new Brigadier, put in a D spring, steel trigger and Wolff trigger return spring. Until I wear out the Brig, as much as I like the sound of this new A3 version, I standing pat.

[JSGlock34]

So I have been involved in this project for quite some time. A couple of key points that you all should know.

1. It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.
2. As of now it will not have the internal frame buffer like the 92A1.
3. It will have an over mold type back strap that will mimic the standard Beretta frame size.
4. It will have checkering on the frame and beveled mag well like the M9A1.
5. Extended Mag button.

There are some other details but I think this is the important stuff that you guys wanted to know.

Cheers,

Ernest

Thanks for the information. That's certainly a game changer for Beretta. One of their challenges has been limited runs of various hard to find configurations ("I'm looking for a Vertec G") and the internet explosion whenever a new model is announced (just like this one) follows the same pattern ("I only want it in a G"; "I don't like the Vertec frame"). This modularity will take that largely out of the equation. Want a 'G'? Change the lever. Want a larger grip? Here's a different backstrap. Very cool - and brings the 92 closer to its industry competitors that are offering more modularity to consumers.

[Hambo]

I hate the Vertec frame. I have big hands, and the standard-size 92 frame fits me like a glove, even with the thick LG302 laser grips on it. That said, if they figured out a way to put out a Vertec frame with grip panels that included a humped back strap to reproduce the standard frame contours, that would be a pretty slick idea.

Same here. I tried a friend's Vertecs and just couldn't stand the smaller frame. That said, my wife might like the A3, and I'm glad that Beretta isn't dumping metal frame TDA pistols like S&W did.

[YVK]

Part of dislike of Vertec frame and its smallish feel is that it comes with a short reach trigger. Replacing it with a standard one makes for a longer reach and overall fuller feel.

[LockedBreech]

This is the same company that stopped production for years on the Brig, Vertec, Elite II, 92G-SD, etc., teased with extremely limited-run frame mounted safety models like the Steel, Stock, and Combat, but felt it wise to come out with the 90-TWO and PX4. Oh, and the G decocker and dovetail front sight isn't standard across their lineup...in 2014. Beretta is anything but a "rational agent" in a lot of their decisions.

I'm a total Beretta fanboy (and I love the PX4) but this is absolutely true. They completely baffle me, frequently. Why money was put into the Pico, of all things, is the most recent befuddling choice.

They make really, really good guns. The quality control and engineering is on par with any other player on the market. If they would stop being weird with it and just start introducing sound designs that the market wants, they'd do even better than they are now. I'm glad they have a robust hunting division, otherwise I'd be concerned that the military contract has lulled them into Colt-style complacency.

[TCinVA]

They put money into the Pico because the market for small semi auto pistols is pretty hot and growing. The people signing up for CCW permits in record numbers are not going to be packing full sized pistols.

[LockedBreech]

I guess my objection with the Pico isn't so much that it's a small .380 CCW gun, that's definitely a hot segment, just with how they chose to design it. Strange mag release, teeny tiny grip but big tall slide, etc. I think a more traditional design with Beretta quality (like a polymer mini-Cheetah or something) could have done better.

I do think the recent move back toward the many 92 variants is a very encouraging sign.

[jetfire]

They put money into the Pico because the market for small semi auto pistols is pretty hot and growing. The people signing up for CCW permits in record numbers are not going to be packing full sized pistols.

The Pico shoots a lot better than it looks.

[LockedBreech]

I forget not everyone has big old gorilla paws like I do. I'm glad the Pico works for some.

[45dotACP]

The Pico shoots a lot better than it looks.
Thank God. If my dog was as ugly as that gun I'd shave his butt and walk him backwards.

And this M9a3 looks like everything I wanted from Beretta, perhaps aside from a frame mounted safety model :D

[JV_]

I always thought the frame mounted safety ergonomics, on the 92, was a bit off. It's not like a 1911.

[El Cid]

Valid point, as this is designed as an issue gun, and one must do what regulations require. I believe you are correct the USAF was the only branch that doesn't require carry with the safety engaged.

However, my comment was towards civilian use. I don't know why one would carry a TDA auto with the safety engaged unless required by regulation.

True, the safety isn't needed for private citizens IMO. But if they wanted one for an extra measure of safety (whether real or perceived) I imagine they'd be likely to skip any pistol with it mounted in the slide.

And it wasn't just the AF not requiring the safety be engaged. It was forbidden for us to use it in that manner.

[TCinVA]

The Pico shoots a lot better than it looks.

I got to handle one and it's a neat little pistol.

[FotoTomas]

This was my first and only VerTec from 13 years ago...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v180/FotoTomas/Beretta_Vertec_on_wood_for_web.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/FotoTomas/media/Beretta_Vertec_on_wood_for_web.jpg.html)

I loved it and shot it better than my regular 92's. Problem was the regular 92 grip was my issued pistol and I let her go to keep the continuity with my duty gun. I recently purchased a M9, a Type M9A1 and put a VerTec on Law-away. This will be another addition to my collection now that I have retired from LE and no longer need to protect my liability exposure with an issued pistol. Eventually I will get around to one of those Wilson Tacticals. This retirement thing coupled with a Beretta thing is going to cost me money. :)

[LHS]

Like I said, someone pounded some sense into BUSA. Looks like you had a big hand in that :)

This is awesome.


So I have been involved in this project for quite some time. A couple of key points that you all should know
1. It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.
2. As of now it will not have the internal frame buffer like the 92A1.
3. It will have an over mold type back strap that will mimic the standard Beretta frame size.
4. It will have checkering on the frame and beveled mag well like the M9A1.
5. Extended Mag button.

There are some other details but I think this is the important stuff that you guys wanted to know.

Cheers,

Ernest

[hufnagel]

This and the Wilson gun almost make me regret getting a brand new 92G recently.
Nah... I like the gun. :D
But if this keeps up I might have to add another 92 to the fleet.

[JSGlock34]

Out of curiosity, what is driving the threaded barrel? I'd imagine the military user community for suppressed pistols is very small, and already has their own solution. I'd think for general issue the threaded barrel would only add additional machining, components and cost. Not to mention the fact that Joe will likely misplace the end cap after the annual post qualification field strip...Is suppressor compatibility a MHS requirement (understanding that this pistol isn't necessarily an answer to the MHS call)?

I'm interested to hear more about the finish as well. Bruniton did not seem to hold up well in military service, and just about anything would be an improvement in this regard.

[JSGlock34]

Hi res image here... (http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/302700/file-2239460708-jpg/M9A3-b.jpg?t=1418919040482)along with a contact form for M9A3 info.

http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/302700/file-2239460708-jpg/M9A3-b.jpg?t=1418919040482

[LSP972]

This retirement thing... is going to cost me money. :)

Count on it. I've bought more guns since retiring than I have in the past 20 years. Its even worse if you have a good retirement gig to fund it all.

.

[LSP972]

Hi res image here... (http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/302700/file-2239460708-jpg/M9A3-b.jpg?t=1418919040482)along with a contact form for M9A3 info.

http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/302700/file-2239460708-jpg/M9A3-b.jpg?t=1418919040482


Hmmm… I wonder if that will take the OEM .22 conversion kit and its magazines? I've got one for the grandson's commercial M9, and its the first .22 kit I've ever tried that:

1. Runs almost flawlessly

2. Runs almost flawlessly with standard velocity .22s

I was thinking hard about one of those Wilson Brigadiers, but I may just wait for this puppy.

Ernest, do you know if this A3 will take the Beretta .22 kit?

.

[YVK]

I was thinking hard about one of those Wilson Brigadiers, but I may just wait for this puppy.


.

I was thinking along the same lines. I already got my Brigadier Tactical and, with USPSA approval, it is not going anywhere. However, this A3 thing may take some wind out of WC gun's sails. Or sales. That could be regrettable.

[Serpico1985]

This is very cool. Whats the 3 biggest gripes about the Beretta?

1) grip is to big
2) don't make any new G models
3) non-dovetailed front sight

So this gun knocks all three of those out of the park. You can use the vertec frame as is or the overmolded grip panels to repilcate the traditional feel. End user can convert to G model like the x series and it has dovetailed front sights to upgrade.

And on top of all this you get the well know Beretta 92 reliabilty and accuracy. Not to mention the tan color sceme is super cool. I no longer want a Brig Tac anymore with this announcment. Any idea how soon they would be available to the civilian market?

Guys I'll say it again, this is VERY cool.

[LSP552]

Count on it. I've bought more guns since retiring than I have in the past 20 years. Its even worse if you have a good retirement gig to fund it all.

.

And you are really screwed if you have a friend who likes to help YOU spend gun money

[65k10]

I am very excited about this. This is pretty much the configuration I wanted a 92 in. Here's hoping the release date is somewhat accurate.

[Clobbersaurus]

This looks great. Will be picking up one for sure.

[abu fitna]

So I have been involved in this project for quite some time.
Cheers,

Ernest

Glad to know that the factory at last listened to someone who actually cared about the use of the weapon. A long time coming... can't wait to see the Wilson packages for this one.

[Redhat]

True, the safety isn't needed for private citizens IMO. But if they wanted one for an extra measure of safety (whether real or perceived) I imagine they'd be likely to skip any pistol with it mounted in the slide.

And it wasn't just the AF not requiring the safety be engaged. It was forbidden for us to use it in that manner.

...except when you clear it or load it or function check it...:cool:

[WobblyPossum]

So I have been involved in this project for quite some time. A couple of key points that you all should know.

1. It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.
2. As of now it will not have the internal frame buffer like the 92A1.
3. It will have an over mold type back strap that will mimic the standard Beretta frame size.
4. It will have checkering on the frame and beveled mag well like the M9A1.
5. Extended Mag button.

There are some other details but I think this is the important stuff that you guys wanted to know.

Cheers,

Ernest

Time to start allocating money. I need two of these.

[El Cid]

...except when you clear it or load it or function check it...:cool:

I was talking about carrying it but I probably didn't have enough coffee when I posted. Lol!

[Redhat]

I was talking about carrying it but I probably didn't have enough coffee when I posted. Lol!

Personally, I liked the way we carried it and didn't see any reason to do otherwise...similar to a DA revolver.

[DocGKR]

Unfortunately no easy way to mount an RDS...

[El Cid]

Personally, I liked the way we carried it and didn't see any reason to do otherwise...similar to a DA revolver.
100% agreed. Grew up in an Army family and was Army ROTC for 3 years (switched to AF senior year after getting fed up) so I was pleasantly surprised to discover the AF was ahead of the other services with regard to the employment of small arms.

[RJ]

Any idea of price point for the civilian market?

(Sorry if I missed it.)

[ReverendMeat]

Any idea how soon they would be available to the civilian market?

Given Beretta's history of announcing things that they don't deliver in a timely manner, I'd say two years.

[Sigfan26]

Given Beretta's history of announcing things that they don't deliver in a timely manner, I'd say two years.

It's a 92 series gun, shouldn't be nearly as difficult as the Pico or Arx100.

[guymontag]

The last paragraph in the original source material says Q2 2015...

[Dagga Boy]

What's funny is I built almost a twin this year. Vertec frame, 92 FS upper from a USMC special operations unit with a threaded barrel. I HATE the way a Beretta feels, BUT, I have always shot them well. For me, the Vertec is the only way they feel right to me, and I likely would have carried one years ago had the Vertec been around. I am now motivated to get off my duff and get a recoil spring guide rod and the spring set from Wilson so I can finish it. I know others hate the grip, but I actually like the way the M9A3 is looking.

It won't in anyway shape or form replace my VP9's or P30's, but it will likely replace my standard 92.

[LHS]

What's funny is I built almost a twin this year. Vertec frame, 92 FS upper from a USMC special operations unit with a threaded barrel. I HATE the way a Beretta feels, BUT, I have always shot them well. For me, the Vertec is the only way they feel right to me, and I likely would have carried one years ago had the Vertec been around. I am now motivated to get off my duff and get a recoil spring guide rod and the spring set from Wilson so I can finish it. I know others hate the grip, but I actually like the way the M9A3 is looking.

It won't in anyway shape or form replace my VP9's or P30's, but it will likely replace my standard 92.

People either love or hate the Vertec frame. I'm in the latter camp, but now we don't have to choose :)

[bigslim]

I wonder if the trigger reset is any better on the A3. I shot a 92fs today and the reset reminded me of my M&P 40, soft and mushy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Apexer]

So I have been involved in this project for quite some time. A couple of key points that you all should know.

1. It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.
2. As of now it will not have the internal frame buffer like the 92A1.
3. It will have an over mold type back strap that will mimic the standard Beretta frame size.
4. It will have checkering on the frame and beveled mag well like the M9A1.
5. Extended Mag button.

There are some other details but I think this is the important stuff that you guys wanted to know.

Cheers,

Ernest

I'll buy the first two I can get! Now this Q2 2015 problem.......:)

[Jeep]

This is very cool. Whats the 3 biggest gripes about the Beretta?

1) grip is to big
2) don't make any new G models
3) non-dovetailed front sight

So this gun knocks all three of those out of the park. You can use the vertec frame as is or the overmolded grip panels to repilcate the traditional feel. End user can convert to G model like the x series and it has dovetailed front sights to upgrade.

And on top of all this you get the well know Beretta 92 reliabilty and accuracy. Not to mention the tan color sceme is super cool. I no longer want a Brig Tac anymore with this announcment. Any idea how soon they would be available to the civilian market?

Guys I'll say it again, this is VERY cool.

Agreed. Now if they would only smooth the DA trigger a bit at the factory and use the D spring instead of the normal mainspring . . . .

[LangdonTactical]

The ECP Point Paper on the M9A3

2886

[ssb]

The pistol definitely looks worthwhile.

Two things:
1. The frame appears to have a 1913-spec rail. I assume that this will necessitate an all-new mold for holster makers (i.e. there's nothing currently available that will be compatible with the -A3)?
2. The sights have dovetails. Are these of a design where there's already sights available, or are sight makers going to have to tool up here as well?

[Suvorov]

It will be interesting to see where this goes. I'm obviously rooting for the home team both as a fan and former user of the M9 and as a taxpayer.

I am curious as to what kind of "enhanced 9mm round" Beretta is alluding to?

[DocGKR]

The Speer G2, Hornady Critical Duty, Federal EFMJ all come to mind...

[5pins]

The Speer G2, Hornady Critical Duty, Federal EFMJ all come to mind...

But will the mil adopted anything other than ball?

[ssb]

The Speer G2, Hornady Critical Duty, Federal EFMJ all come to mind...

Wouldn't that be problematic (Hague) considering that all of those rounds are designed to expand?

[Sigfan26]

Wouldn't that be problematic (Hague) considering that all of those rounds are designed to expand?

That section wasnt signed by the USA. It's simply barrier blind... Just so happens it expands.

[ToddG]

That said, if they figured out a way to put out a Vertec frame with grip panels that included a humped back strap to reproduce the standard frame contours, that would be a pretty slick idea.

That was one of the original Vertec design requirements. One of these days I'm going to have to see if the hard drive in my Beretta-era notebook is still working. I've got a copy of the original design spec I wrote in '01. Ernest and I spent a day running around the factory with the prototype frame asking random employees if they liked the way it felt. (the prototype had a standard, not short, trigger ... the inclusion of a short trigger was my idea and one that helped sink the original Vertecs)

[Mark]

My favorite combo at this point is vertec grips on a standard M9 frame. I hope the M9A3 will have the option to run the thinner grips with the hump as well and not just either thin grips/no hump or fat grips/hump. Like a small/medium/large.

[Chuck Haggard]

Ref slide mounted safeties;

I ran a 3rd gen S&W on duty and off for almost 20 years, and once I got used to the safety after transitioning from a wheelgun I carried safety on 100% of the time. Most folks I see that have issues with a frame mounted safety are either dealing with gun vs hand size issues, or they are "doing it wrong".

Back when I still had reflexes, and didn't have arthritis, I was consistently banging first shot hits at five yards into the box on a TQ19, from safety on, out of a 6280, in .79 on the timer. In my experience the safety on the M9s that I have shot was a bit faster to get to consistently.

[cathellsk]

From BerettaUSA.com...

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee515/cathellsk/54b9c31266577515598adcdd27a55126.jpg

[GJM]

Irrespective of what you think of the lower, the new upper is pure gold -- dovetailed front sight and G. Plop it on a M9A1 lower and you have a "Langdon" special.

PS, I assume CT would make "M" model laser grips for the new lower.

[LSP972]

That was one of the original Vertec design requirements. One of these days I'm going to have to see if the hard drive in my Beretta-era notebook is still working. I've got a copy of the original design spec I wrote in '01. Ernest and I spent a day running around the factory with the prototype frame asking random employees if they liked the way it felt. (the prototype had a standard, not short, trigger ... the inclusion of a short trigger was my idea and one that helped sink the original Vertecs)

It would appear that this puppy (or any Vertec), coupled with Wilson's short trigger, would be the solution for SHS (Small Hands Syndrome)… assuming the Wilson trigger drops in.

And I would still like to know if the OEM Beretta .22 kit will fit/function on this M9A3. I realize that its new, nobody here but Ernest (probably) has even seen one yet… but I gots ta KNOW!:D

Also, as a taxpayer, it would seem pretty obvious to me that Beretta has their feces consolidated on the government-contract business (judging by that "paper"), and this proposed pistol would indeed make the most sense for new military procurement; fiscally and otherwise.

In any event, I'll be watching this one. Something tells me that my recent/resurgent interest in revolvers is going to spawn a resurgent interest in TDA bottom feeders. I scratched that itch with a P229 Scorpion a while back, but for various reasons let it die.

.

[LSP972]

out of a 6280,

You talking about a holster, there?

As in, SafariLand duty type, one each?

.

[tcba_joe]

After reading the paper I'm cutouts what exactly the M9A2 is. I'm assuming it's a modified M9 frame, so no vertec or rail?

[El Cid]

Ref slide mounted safeties;

I ran a 3rd gen S&W on duty and off for almost 20 years, and once I got used to the safety after transitioning from a wheelgun I carried safety on 100% of the time. Most folks I see that have issues with a frame mounted safety are either dealing with gun vs hand size issues, or they are "doing it wrong".

Back when I still had reflexes, and didn't have arthritis, I was consistently banging first shot hits at five yards into the box on a TQ19, from safety on, out of a 6280, in .79 on the timer. In my experience the safety on the M9s that I have shot was a bit faster to get to consistently.

Certainly with enough training and repetition any setup can be mastered. As you stated, some folks will still have issues depending upon hand size, even with spring loaded safeties. But all else being equal, I can't understand why a shooter would choose a slide mounted safety over a frame mounted style. The ergonomics favor the downward sweep of the frame style in my experience. We also know Beretta has the plans and ability to make such pistols.

Of course knowing this is not for the MHS and is an attempt to provide an enhanced weapon as a continuation to the existing contract, leaving the safety as is makes a little more sense to me.

[Jeep]

It would appear that this puppy (or any Vertec), coupled with Wilson's short trigger, would be the solution for SHS (Small Hands Syndrome)… assuming the Wilson trigger drops in.

And I would still like to know if the OEM Beretta .22 kit will fit/function on this M9A3. I realize that its new, nobody here but Ernest (probably) has even seen one yet… but I gots ta KNOW!:D

Also, as a taxpayer, it would seem pretty obvious to me that Beretta has their feces consolidated on the government-contract business (judging by that "paper"), and this proposed pistol would indeed make the most sense for new military procurement; fiscally and otherwise.

In any event, I'll be watching this one. Something tells me that my recent/resurgent interest in revolvers is going to spawn a resurgent interest in TDA bottom feeders. I scratched that itch with a P229 Scorpion a while back, but for various reasons let it die.

.

Your retirement keeps getting more expensive!

[Aray]

This is kinda cool. I got to see the PTC M&P before it was available many moons ago, and now I got to fondle the new Beretta. Good things happen to people who hang out around here.

[JSGlock34]

Lots more data on the Beretta M9A3 (http://www.beretta.com/en-us/m9a3/#) page. It notes "Over-center" safety lever to prevent inadvertent engagement of lever. This sounds like the feature on the M9A3 prototype mentioned at AUSA. Curious to hear more about how this works. Slide finish is Cerakote, which I think is an improvement over Bruniton for that particular part.

CALIBER 9mm Luger (9x19mm Parabellum)
SYSTEM OF OPERATION Short recoil, semiautomic, double/single action
MAGAZINE CAPACITY 17 rounds standard. Optional 15, 20 and 30 round magazines available
MAGAZINE Sand-resistant magazine with PVD coating
FRONT SIGHT Blade, dovetailed to slide, tritium dot
REAR SIGHT Notched bar, dovetailed to slide, tritium 2-dot. Adjustable for windage
SAFETY FEATURES Decocking/safety lever, automatic firing pin block, loaded chamber indicator, external hammer, half-cock notch, double action first trigger pull (Type F configuration)
LOCKING SYSTEM Tilting locking block, "3rd Gen" design for increased service life
EXTERNAL HAMMER Provides the energy to the firing pin, virtually elminating the possibility of misfires due to light primer strikes, even in adverse conditions. Also provides an immediate visual and tactile indicator as to the cocked/uncocked status of the pistol
FINISH Flat Dark Earth. CerakoteTM, anodizing, Bruniton, black oxide, PVD. Advanced coatings provide high lubricity, corrosion resistance and excellent wear resistance. Reduced visual and IR signature. Chrome lined bore and chamber
ACCESSORY RAIL 3 slot MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail
BARREL THREAD 1/2" X 28 standard thread on extended barrel, with thread protector
ACCESSORIES Wrap-around backstrap grip unit for larger handed shooters
GRIP/FRAME "Vertec" style smaller gripped frame with straight backstrap and thin plastic grips
ADDITIONAL FEATURES "Universal" slide design to allow Armorer conversion to "G" decocker-only operation using Conversion Kit. "Over-center" safety lever to prevent inadvertent engagement of lever. Oversize beveled magazine well
OVERALL HEIGHT 5.4 in
OVERALL WIDTH 1.5 in (1.3 in at grips)
OVERALL LENGTH 8.7 in
BARREL LENGTH 5.1 in
SIGHT RADIUS 6.3 in
WEIGHT UNLOADED 33.3 oz

[Gadfly]

I like it a lot. Love the G model. But will it be offered in basic black?

FDE has its place, but it seems "meh" on the beretta...

[JSGlock34]

I'd think that if they intend to market this pistol to law enforcement, it will come in black.

[LSP972]

Your retirement keeps getting more expensive!


Yeah, but what the hell… toys are good.;)

.

[Rich]

Unfortunately no easy way to mount an RDS...


Doc is there any problems mounting a red dot using the pistols rail. Something along the lines like the mount sold for the HK P30 that's being sold at HKparts. They also have bladetech holsters for the combo

[Rich]

Ref slide mounted safeties;

I ran a 3rd gen S&W on duty and off for almost 20 years, and once I got used to the safety after transitioning from a wheelgun I carried safety on 100% of the time. Most folks I see that have issues with a frame mounted safety are either dealing with gun vs hand size issues, or they are "doing it wrong".

Back when I still had reflexes, and didn't have arthritis, I was consistently banging first shot hits at five yards into the box on a TQ19, from safety on, out of a 6280, in .79 on the timer. In my experience the safety on the M9s that I have shot was a bit faster to get to consistently.

I went from revolver to 1911 then 3rd gen M5906 and M6906. 1911 was the harder for me than the M5906/M6906. (MyBAd I had a P85 before the Colts but never carried it for SD)
Never a problem with the safety . Never had a problem with the mag disconnect either.

Also like the standard safety on the Beretta.

[tcba_joe]

Question for those more familiar with Beretta evolution:

Is the Gen 3 locking block new? Or is it just marketing bullet points for the current 92/M9 locking block?

[LockedBreech]

Question for those more familiar with Beretta evolution:

Is the Gen 3 locking block new? Or is it just marketing bullet points for the current 92/M9 locking block?
The third gen is the newest. But yeah, it's not new to this gun, it has been around for some years.

[Mark]

From BerettaUSA.com...

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee515/cathellsk/54b9c31266577515598adcdd27a55126.jpg

I'd think it would be prudent to have an in between "wrap-around" unit with the thin grips and hump as a sort a medium size grip. Selfishly that's exactly what I prefer on the current M9 and practically Glock, M&P, and HK all have at least 3 size combinations.

[GJM]

This grip arrangement looks like a compromise solution for an organization like branches of the military. In that regard, it makes sense.

However, I would want to choose either a Vertec or regular frame, and then have a full range of grips to pick from -- such as the trick grips Bill Wilson has in prototype form now. Being stuck with the few options likely available from BUSA is less satisfactory.

[Edwin]

I just want a super extra large wrap around. Something bigger than the normal one shown there. Hopefully someone makes it if Beretta doesn't.

[LHS]

This grip arrangement looks like a compromise solution for an organization like branches of the military. In that regard, it makes sense.

However, I would want to choose either a Vertec or regular frame, and then have a full range of grips to pick from -- such as the trick grips Bill Wilson has in prototype form now. Being stuck with the few options likely available from BUSA is less satisfactory.

It is a Vertec, so any existing Vertec grips should fit.

[GJM]

It is a Vertec, so any existing Vertec grips should fit.

Yep -- precisely the problem! I want a M9A1 style lower and the new Wilson grips you shot. ��

[Jeep]

Yep -- precisely the problem! I want a M9A1 style lower and the new Wilson grips you shot. ��

Given the innovation we are seeing from both Beretta and Wilson these days (not surprising from the latter, but very nice to see from the former) I'm thinking that within not that long a time we will be able to get a whole range of options.

Perhaps gun companies really are learning that one size actually doesn't fit all.

[Mark]

If they went I to a snap on style grip ala the Sig E2 style they could easily make a whole plethora of size options while still allowing traditional screw on grips. This would be simple.

[LHS]

Per my contact at BUSA, this is a standard Vertec frame and will work just fine with the OEM .22 kit.


Hmmm… I wonder if that will take the OEM .22 conversion kit and its magazines? I've got one for the grandson's commercial M9, and its the first .22 kit I've ever tried that:

1. Runs almost flawlessly

2. Runs almost flawlessly with standard velocity .22s

I was thinking hard about one of those Wilson Brigadiers, but I may just wait for this puppy.

Ernest, do you know if this A3 will take the Beretta .22 kit?

.

[LHS]

It's compatible with standard M9A1 holsters already in use by the military. Should also fit commercial 92A1 holsters.

The slide is a standard Vertec (albeit with milling for G components), so pre-existing front sights will fit fine.


The pistol definitely looks worthwhile.

Two things:
1. The frame appears to have a 1913-spec rail. I assume that this will necessitate an all-new mold for holster makers (i.e. there's nothing currently available that will be compatible with the -A3)?
2. The sights have dovetails. Are these of a design where there's already sights available, or are sight makers going to have to tool up here as well?

[Jaywalker]

Speaking as an ex-contracts and -project/program guy, I have to ask if there isn't a lot of vaporware in this model. It's presented as an Engineering Change Proposal effort, which means they want the USG to fund its development and production. (ECPs are how companies make money - "Break even on the contract, make money on the changes.") If the USG declines to fund, will the model be available?

[TCinVA]

We've seen the A3 in the flesh...and the development on most of the changed features has been done over the years and has been seen on other models. So I don't think that's the case.

[GJM]

We've seen the A3 in the flesh...and the development on most of the changed features has been done over the years and has been seen on other models. So I don't think that's the case.

TC, any sense as to whether BUSA will standardize on this top end configuration for all the non-Brigadier profile slide, non 92A1 full size 92 pistols? Dovetailed front sight, modified safety, G option -- why wouldn't this be THE BUSA 92 upper for the FS, M9A1, and M9?

[LHS]

TC, any sense as to whether BUSA will standardize on this top end configuration for all the non-Brigadier profile slide, non 92A1 full size 92 pistols? Dovetailed front sight, modified safety, G option -- why wouldn't this be THE BUSA 92 upper for the FS, M9A1, and M9?

If Uncle Sam signs off on the A3, Beretta would have little reason to continue making the old integral-front-sight slide. One slide to rule them all.

[LSP972]

Per my contact at BUSA, this is a standard Vertec frame and will work just fine with the OEM .22 kit.

Outstanding. Thank you.

I hope they offer a civvie version without the threaded barrel.

.

[JSGlock34]

TC, any sense as to whether BUSA will standardize on this top end configuration for all the non-Brigadier profile slide, non 92A1 full size 92 pistols? Dovetailed front sight, modified safety, G option -- why wouldn't this be THE BUSA 92 upper for the FS, M9A1, and M9?

Why continue to manufacture the 92A1 at all?

[ToddG]

Speaking as an ex-contracts and -project/program guy, I have to ask if there isn't a lot of vaporware in this model. It's presented as an Engineering Change Proposal effort, which means they want the USG to fund its development and production. (ECPs are how companies make money - "Break even on the contract, make money on the changes.") If the USG declines to fund, will the model be available?

That's not necessarily how ECPs work when it comes to things like a pistol. We pushed forward various ECPs when I was at Beretta that were little more than switching the original contract spec for a newer existing commercial spec. That actually saves the manufacturer money in the long run. It can also -- as BUSA hopes to do here -- extend a contract which might otherwise be in jeopardy of going out to a new procurement. So BUSA eats the development cost and offers a COTS solution in the form of an ECP in hopes of squashing the new .mil pistol project.

It also provides a lot of backwards compatibility in terms of e.g. magazines, some spare parts, some holsters, training, ammo, etc.

[Jaywalker]

Thanks, Todd. Yeah, that is different from the contracts I'm accustomed to working with. In mine, the USG would be expected to pay for any tooling changes necessary for full-scale production, plus other financial change issues.

[Jared]

Why continue to manufacture the 92A1 at all?

Good question. Simplest answer, the 92A1 is made in Italy, and Italy only. BUSA really has no control over whether it gets manufactured as far as I can tell. Been told both here and other places that the two are very nearly two entirely separate companies. So, simply put, since the M9A3 is a BUSA product, producing the 92A1 wouldn't take manufacturing capacity away from the M9A3.

I have a feeling that between the threaded barrel and the Cerakote, the M9A3 will MSRP higher than the 92A1. How much I won't even guess, cause that's all it'd be. But the 92A1 could have a nice spot in the catalog for those that want some upgrades from the standard 92 without going full M9A3 (again, assuming there's a significant cost difference).

I'm already a little lukewarm on the M9A3, solely because of the Vertec frame. If I hate it (dunno, never shot one) the that leaves me using the adapter, which I think is a Hogue rubber part. I don't care for rubber grip panels on a 92.

[ToddG]

Been told both here and other places that the two are very nearly two entirely separate companies.

Unless something major has changed recently, this is not the case. When I worked at BUSA, Dr. Beretta was in the US regularly and had a very direct hand in what did and didn't happen on this side of the pond.


So, simply put, since the M9A3 is a BUSA product, producing the 92A1 wouldn't take manufacturing capacity away from the M9A3.

If the A1 is made solely and completely in Italy and the A3 is made solely and completely in the US, that is very true. However, the question is whether the A1 will continue to have a purpose once the A3 exists. If not, neither BUSA nor Beretta Italy has much reason to produce it anymore. It certainly wouldn't be hard for Italy to start manufacturing the A3.


I have a feeling that between the threaded barrel and the Cerakote, the M9A3 will MSRP higher than the 92A1. How much I won't even guess, cause that's all it'd be. But the 92A1 could have a nice spot in the catalog for those that want some upgrades from the standard 92 without going full M9A3 (again, assuming there's a significant cost difference).

I think -- especially if the A3 gains consumer traction unlike the A1 -- that you're more likely to see a broader range of A3s offered; e.g., a non-threaded barrel version of the A3. You aren't likely to see different complete lines kept in place. As others have said, it makes little sense to manufacturer multiple types of slides if one can "do it all." The only reason the original 92FS has stayed in the lineup is because it continues to be the official sidearm of the US Military and as such has significant government and commercial demand.

[JTQ]

The holster makers must continue to bang their heads against the wall trying to figure out what slide/rail/etc., the 92 will have. My concern for holster availability kept me from buying a 92A1, which probably worked to my advantage since I don't really care for the rail, and now the 92G is available which is the gun I'd probably prefer anyway.

[5pins]

I wonder how popular this will be, with civilian, if the military doesn’t adopt it.

[GJM]

I consider the dovetailed front sight and G to be the most desirable Beretta features over a standard 92.

[bigslim]

I consider the dovetailed front sight and G to be the most desirable Beretta features over a standard 92.

And my biggest frustration was getting the rail with the G and the dovetail front sight.

Mike

[LHS]

The holster makers must continue to bang their heads against the wall trying to figure out what slide/rail/etc., the 92 will have. My concern for holster availability kept me from buying a 92A1, which probably worked to my advantage since I don't really care for the rail, and now the 92G is available which is the gun I'd probably prefer anyway.

The Vertec slide fits in standard holsters, so anything built for a Vertec, M9A1 or 92A1 should fit the M9A3 just fine

[LSP972]

And my biggest frustration was getting the rail with the G and the dovetail front sight.

Mike

Agreed; the rail adds a lot to an already bulky pistol. I don't need a rail; I already have railed pistols I would grab if things got serious. I'm interested in the Beretta as a diversion from my HK LEMs; something to play with, as opposed to train with.

The more I peruse this, the more I think I'd be happier sending a standard 92G to Wilson and having his boys work it over, similar to what GJM did. But I imagine that the wait time for that is measured in years, so…


.

[GJM]

You would be both dollars and functionality ahead to mate the upper from the new A3 with a FS lower. The pieces interchange, and 8/10 would happily swap you their FS lower for a railed Vertec lower.

A factory G is just dollars, but the dovetailed front sight conversion isn't available.

[LSP972]

The dollars are irrelevant; I can afford what I want, thanks to a great retirement gig. Functionality is definitely important. I was primarily interested in the M9A3 due to the shorter trigger reach of the Vertec frame; but the general consensus is that the Wilson/VZ stocks on the new Brigadier Tactical are sufficiently small for those of us with munchkin hands.

I see you have, several times, mentioned that buying one these factory semi-customs would be better than having Wilson modify an existing pistol.

Is that because of the cost, or wait times, or what? Serious question, not trying to bait you.

Do you have any idea of current wait times for Beretta custom work from Wilson?

.

[GJM]

Here is my thinking.

A dovetailed front sight is mandatory, because of the ability to use FO or tritium, and change/replace/repair as you wish. The ONLY options to get that are the 92A1, Elite/SD, Brig Tac or a Vertec.

I am pro, not anti-customization and would have Wilson modify any choice with trigger work and dehorning at a minimum. Wilson did a fantastic job on my 92A1.

It all gets down to what base pistol you want to use. My preference is either the heavier Elite/SD/Brig Tac slide or the thinner Vertec upper on a M9A1 lower. Since the 92A1 isn't swappable with other 92 pieces, it is out for me. Further confirmed when the HD sights wouldn't regulate.

Decide whether you want a Brigadier thickness or thin taper slide, and let that drive your process. Pair with whatever lower you prefer -- FS no rail, M9A1 with rail, or Vertec. That allows you to end up with the exact configuration you want. Have Wilson install their new trigger bar, do a trigger job, dehorn it, and you have an awesome Beretta 92 in the exact config you want.

[orionz06]

George,
Are all those combos potentially different trigger guard shapes?

[bigslim]

Agreed; the rail adds a lot to an already bulky pistol. I don't need a rail; I already have railed pistols I would grab if things got serious. I'm interested in the Beretta as a diversion from my HK LEMs; something to play with, as opposed to train with.

The more I peruse this, the more I think I'd be happier sending a standard 92G to Wilson and having his boys work it over, similar to what GJM did. But I imagine that the wait time for that is measured in years, so…


.

I guess I look at every pistol I own or purchase as a SD tool so a rail is a must have for me.

Mike

[GJM]

George,
Are all those combos potentially different trigger guard shapes?

Unfortunately, yes.

[Edwin]

I'm with Mike. When I get home, I'll slip on the light and put it in my nightstand safe.

[GJM]

I started designing a flow chart, to guide selection, but it got too complicated. If you agree a dovetailed front sight is essential, these are what I think are the most desirable options:

1) "I want a .40."

Get a 96A1.


2) I want a "92G-SD." (meaning a Brigadier thickness slide)

Get a Wilson Brigadier Tactical.


3) "I want a Langdon special." (Meaning thin slide with dovetailed front sight and M9A1 lower)

Get the new A3, and trade your Vertec lower for a M9A1 lower. Or find an existing Vertec and get a M9A1 lower.


4) I want a "Langdon Special" without a rail.

See 3 above, but get a FS style rail.


5) "I have small hands."

Get the new A3 or an existing Vertec.


6) "I want Italian and don't care about USPSA Production."

Get a 92A1, but realize you can't swap with other full size 92 uppers/lowers and the mag well isn't beveled, making reloads harder.

[orionz06]

Unfortunately, yes.


Nah, we're good. It's taken a bit but we're good.

[Jared]

6) "I want Italian and don't care about USPSA Production."

Get a 92A1, but realize you can't swap with other full size 92 uppers/lowers and the mag well isn't beveled, making reloads harder.

GJM,

The 92A1 is on the Production list. Why the mention "don't care about USPSA Production?"

[Jared]

Nah, we're good. It's taken a bit but we're good.

Yes, you're stuff is. I dunno if you saw it in the other thread, but the holsters you made for me also fit my Brigadier. Dunno if you did that part intentionally or not, but it worked out well. I've stuffed just about every combination imaginable in those holsters and they all worked properly. Now that I think of it, I haven't put my Brig slide on my M9a1 lower to try yet. I'll do that this weekend.

[GJM]

GJM,

The 92A1 is on the Production list. Why the mention "don't care about USPSA Production?"

Sorry. No bevel on the 92A1, unlike the M9A1, and no way to legally do it following the rules.

[orionz06]

Yes, you're stuff is. I dunno if you saw it in the other thread, but the holsters you made for me also fit my Brigadier. Dunno if you did that part intentionally or not, but it worked out well. I've stuffed just about every combination imaginable in those holsters and they all worked properly. Now that I think of it, I haven't put my Brig slide on my M9a1 lower to try yet. I'll do that this weekend.

It was intentional, tried to fit all dimensions found online.

[JSGlock34]

Good article at GearScout (http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2014/12/30/the-m9a3-berettas-shrewd-move/)with additional details on the M9A3 - including pictures and a video filmed at Beretta.

http://2vyl0i2veiai1uu9bv3ai7wj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/12/122914-OFF-Beretta-M9A3059.jpg
http://2vyl0i2veiai1uu9bv3ai7wj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/12/122914-OFF-Beretta-M9A3060.jpg

[Matt O]

Good article at GearScout (http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2014/12/30/the-m9a3-berettas-shrewd-move/)with additional details on the M9A3 - including pictures and a video filmed at Beretta.

http://2vyl0i2veiai1uu9bv3ai7wj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/12/122914-OFF-Beretta-M9A3059.jpg
http://2vyl0i2veiai1uu9bv3ai7wj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/12/122914-OFF-Beretta-M9A3060.jpg

Oh my...

Tempted, I am.

[Saur]

Neato. The look of those beretta's have an almost steampunkish vibe to them.

[Sigfan26]

Good article at GearScout (http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2014/12/30/the-m9a3-berettas-shrewd-move/)with additional details on the M9A3 - including pictures and a video filmed at Beretta.

http://2vyl0i2veiai1uu9bv3ai7wj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/12/122914-OFF-Beretta-M9A3059.jpg
http://2vyl0i2veiai1uu9bv3ai7wj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/12/122914-OFF-Beretta-M9A3060.jpg

It's a 90Two Vertec (minus the recoil buffer)! I like the 90Two, BTW. Only Beretta, in the 7 years (it was there long before me, when the 90Two was brand new) as a rental gun at the range I've worked at, that has NEVER required a replacement part (recoil spring is still the original, even). I'll probably grab an m9a3 when they're available!

[Edwin]

I hope the texture of the standard grip is grippy because it doesn't look like it is in that photo. I hope someone makes an extra large grip.

[Jeep]

Those things will sell for sure in the civilian market.

[WobblyPossum]

I'm glad the announcement came just prior to the Vertec release. I was planning on buying two Vertecs and sending them out for G conversions. Now I'll just get these and do the conversion myself assuming they make the parts available to the general public and not just certified armorers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hambo]

I started designing a flow chart, to guide selection, but it got too complicated. If you agree a dovetailed front sight is essential, these are what I think are the most desirable options:

1) "I want a .40."

Get a 96A1.


2) I want a "92G-SD." (meaning a Brigadier thickness slide)

Get a Wilson Brigadier Tactical.


3) "I want a Langdon special." (Meaning thin slide with dovetailed front sight and M9A1 lower)

Get the new A3, and trade your Vertec lower for a M9A1 lower. Or find an existing Vertec and get a M9A1 lower.


4) I want a "Langdon Special" without a rail.

See 3 above, but get a FS style rail.


5) "I have small hands."

Get the new A3 or an existing Vertec.


6) "I want Italian and don't care about USPSA Production."

Get a 92A1, but realize you can't swap with other full size 92 uppers/lowers and the mag well isn't beveled, making reloads harder.

Thanks for sorting this out. The only thing I would say is #6, I beveled my Brig mag well but not my 92 and it's doesn't seem like that big a deal based on the shape of 92 mags. Your mileage and preference may vary.

Now if you really want your chart to be comprehensive, you could add holster makers for various hybrids. ;)

[LockedBreech]

I don't really have a use for the threaded barrel, I don't own a suppressor and I don't really plan to, but overall the A3 looks really fun. If they come out with a non-threaded variant it'd be ideal. Fortunately, I still have a few more Berettas to save up for and strike off the wish list (just saw a new-production single-stack Cheetah stainless with wood grips, and I want a Brig Inox pretty bad). Maybe in the meantime they'll broaden the line a bit. Or I'll try out suppressors finally.

[5pins]

Apparently the Army said thanks but no thanks.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/09/army-rejects-m9a3-proposal-opts-for-new-pistol.html



U.S. Army weapons officials will not evaluate an improved version of the service's Cold War-era 9mm pistol, choosing instead to search for a more modern soldier sidearm.

[Jeep]

Apparently the Army said thanks but no thanks.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/09/army-rejects-m9a3-proposal-opts-for-new-pistol.html



We will now see what Congress says. My impression has been that the House isn't really too eager for the military to spend a ton of money on a new pistol that isn't really needed. And who knows, maybe some one, somewhere, will finally get the point that the money should be put into training ammo, not a new pistol, in the first place.

[GardoneVT]

And who knows, maybe some one, somewhere, will finally get the point that the money should be put into training ammo, not a new pistol, in the first place.

Training ammo? For what purpose, shooting the enemy ?!!

What insanity. Next thing you'll say is the military exists to break things and kill people.

[MD7305]

I hope Beretta continues forward with the M9A3 even if the .mil isn't interested.

[LockedBreech]

I hope Beretta continues forward with the M9A3 even if the .mil isn't interested.

Big +1

[NickA]

I hope Beretta continues forward with the M9A3 even if the .mil isn't interested.
On FB they're teasing another new 92 series product to be released at SHOT, maybe that's it. Whatever it is will come in a 50 Cal ammo can, whatever that means.

[RAM Engineer]

On FB they're teasing another new 92 series product to be released at SHOT, maybe that's it. Whatever it is will come in a 50 Cal ammo can, whatever that means.

Are you talking about the relaunch of the 92G-SD?

[Suvorov]

Are you talking about the relaunch of the 92G-SD?

No, looks like something else. https://www.facebook.com/BerettaUSA/photos/a.489035362876.267268.156180932876/10152664114162877/?type=1&theater


And the new product surprised keep coming, for 90-Series fans.
What's will be the gun sold in THIS box? We can't tell you, right now, but you might want to be sitting down, when we unveil it, during SHOT Show, Jan 20.

[JSGlock34]

I'm okay with the Army saying that they still want to hold the MHS trials. No doubt Beretta will mobilize their lobbyists to support the M9A3, and their competitors will do the same to ensure a MHS competition is held. What I'm not okay with is the Army passing on the M9A3 to enter the force instead of additional M9s under the existing contracts. The Army could at least get some new M9A3s to enter the system via the ECP instead of the M9 at no additional cost. Instead we're going to continue to add thousands of M9s (not even M9A1s) to the force. That makes no sense when a better option is available without the expenditure of funds.

[Jeep]

Training ammo? For what purpose, shooting the enemy ?!!

What insanity. Next thing you'll say is the military exists to break things and kill people.

Good point. I totally lost my head. After all, the Navy now advertises itself as a global force for good, and the photos show that means setting up hospitals and schools--kind of a Peace Corps in blue--not killing bad guys. Maybe we can ditch the pistols entirely and replace them with small devices that play "Kumbayah" repeatedly.

[Jeep]

I'm okay with the Army saying that they still want to hold the MHS trials. No doubt Beretta will mobilize their lobbyists to support the M9A3, and their competitors will do the same to ensure a MHS competition is held. What I'm not okay with is the Army passing on the M9A3 to enter the force instead of additional M9s under the existing contracts. The Army could at least get some new M9A3s to enter the system via the ECP instead of the M9 at no additional cost. Instead we're going to continue to add thousands of M9s (not even M9A1s) to the force. That makes no sense when a better option is available without the expenditure of funds.

You ignore the fact that it is easier to replace a whole bunch of pistols if they all look kinda old, but not so easy if some of those pistols look more modern and unused. Someone might think you are wasting money.

[Kyle Reese]

Until the culture of half-assed handgun training is remedied in the Big Army, adopting a new service handgun won't amount to a hill of beans when Joe gets sent downrange and experiences the same problems that he's having with the M9. Buying new gear is a lot sexier than investing time and funds into a modern and relevant training regimen and qual courses.

[JSGlock34]

Did any information on commercial M9A3 pricing come out at SHOT?

[Fordtough25]

Nice spread on the new M9A3 in the new G&A! The article states that the Army responded in January saying they had not declined the new engineering proposal and were looking into it. I like the looks of it and can't wait to hold one!

[45dotACP]

Did any information on commercial M9A3 pricing come out at SHOT?

If it's more expensive, I don't see why the army wouldn't adopt it....

[LockedBreech]

Did any information on commercial M9A3 pricing come out at SHOT?

After the 92G-SD came out at $1,200 at Bud's, I'm less than excited for A3 pricing. I love Beretta, but come on.

[JSGlock34]

Apparently Pat Rogers recently conducted an EAG pistol class for Beretta Defense Technologies where both the APX and the M9A3 featured prominently among the students. Pictures at Berettaforum.net... (http://berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=115233)

[GJM]

Apparently Pat Rogers recently conducted an EAG pistol class for Beretta Defense Technologies where both the APX and the M9A3 featured prominently among the students. Pictures at Berettaforum.net... (http://berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=115233)

Good get on the link!

[LHS]

Oh that thread will be comedy gold as all the fanbois start pestering Pat about irrelevant minutia.