Not sure if it still stands true, but many years ago when I was on active duty in the 82nd, we would have marines come train at Bragg and they would be blown away by how new our gear and weapons were. Thier stuff was very old compared to us and they told us they always got new stuff way later than the Army.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcbusmc24
This goes way back. The Marines went ashore on Guadalcanal carrying '03 Springfields. It probably goes back farther than that, but that's the first example that comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by claymore504
IIRC that was a deliberate choice by the USMC, they had access to M1s, but decided that it wasn't worth the disruption in training and supply while they were rapidly trying to build up.Quote:
Originally Posted by revchuck38
There was also the sentiment that the Marines on the ground would have preference for the tried and true over an unproven semi-auto.
Seems to me the Marine Corps has been trying to stay on the cutting edge for the ground fighter. Sure they have less to spend, but they also don't have the same Army expenses as the Army has to provide broader combined arms and sustainment functions for what was air-land battle and will be someday multi-domain operations.
If we consider the M9A1 and the Marines Corps looking ahead to using weaponlights, the H&K IAR, adopting of the 416 platform, and wider adoption of suppressors the MC is doing alright and on a good trajectory to make each ground combat oriented Marine a little better than its Army counterpart. That is just for now, as the Army is undergoing serious modernization over the next decade.
I believe that Beretta was using slides from some other source for those pistols, and they were not heat treated properly (something like that). The slides broke at the breach and the rear portion of the slide impacted the shooters face. Beretta claimed that the SEAL's were using hot sub gun ammo (which they weren't), the SEAL's said FU Beretta and went back their SIG's until the Glock 19.Quote:
Originally Posted by farscott
Slight correction: Beretta's claim was that they were using improperly spec'd ammo that gave near proof pressures. Something due to out of spec interior dimensions of the cartridge down by the head, if I recall correctly. It wasn't "subgun" ammo, as the US didn't even use any hot "subgun" ammo to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabasco
Bartocci has an informative video on the selection of the M9 that seems relevant here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
I have some of that early Winchester M882 ammo. It is stout shooting stuff, very noticeable and I believe it is a much later production to what caused the slide failures. I gave Doc a box of it to shoot which he has detailed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BJV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabasco
What I heard was that when beretta won the contract to provide the French army with 92s they had to make them (or at least the initial batch) with a certain steel that the French themselves provided. This steel was brittle and slides made from it wouldn’t last past 10,000 rounds. Beretta used that steel in a batch of guns that went to the seals and that’s why the slides broke.
I suggest reading the 1988 GAO report on the M9 failures. Note that the first NSW slide failures were observed with the commercial 92SB.
Though I understand that the early French 92G (produced under license as the PAMAS G1) had brittle slides (reportedly associated with the use of tellurium in the steel specified/provided by the French), the French adopted the pistol in 1989 (after the documented US slide failures). Though I've seen speculation that the tellurium slides produced for the French contract could have found their way to the US in the early days of the M9 program, I've never quite understood how the timing aligned, or why it would affect commercially produced pistols. I seem to recall a magazine article from the time trying to make that connection.