Beretta M9A3 Is this modular enough?

[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?