How the Army Ditched the Beretta, Snubbed GLOCK, & Bet Big on SIG—Was It Worth It? ~ VIDEO

When the U.S. Military dropped the hammer on Beretta’s long-serving M9 and picked the SIG P320 (designated M17/M18) as its new sidearm, it kicked off one of the crucial debated navy weapons transitions in current reminiscence. James Reeves’s current video lays out the drama behind the choice, and with assist from navy stories, contract information, and soldier suggestions, we are able to now piece collectively the complete story behind this $580 million name—and its penalties.

The Beretta M9: Outdated or Underappreciated?

Let’s be trustworthy: the M9 had a heck of a run. It changed the 1911 within the Nineteen Eighties after blowing it away in trials—proving ten instances extra dependable with fewer malfunctions and higher service life. It met NATO’s 9mm normal, carried out effectively in brutal mud, saltwater, and drop assessments, and was adopted by a number of branches of the U.S. navy.

Beretta U.S.A. accomplished the fourteenth consecutive M9 Lot Acceptance Check (LAT) with a mean of just one malfunction each 19,090 rounds.

However time caught up with the M9. By the early 2000s, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan reported reliability points—particularly in dusty environments. Some blamed the open-slide design, others pointed to the Military’s determination to low cost out on magazines. As an alternative of sourcing mags from Beretta or Mec-Gar, they purchased cheaper variations from Airtronic with a gritty phosphate coating that didn’t play effectively with tremendous desert mud. That mistake alone induced a wave of failures to feed.

Add to that: the M9 Handgun lacked a rail for mounting lights, its grip wasn’t modular or ergonomic for smaller palms, and discipline upkeep was a ache. In accordance with a Heart for Naval Analyses examine, lower than 60% of M9 customers had been glad with the pistol—the bottom rating of any small arm within the survey.

Enter the M9A3: The Improve That Wasn’t

Beretta responded with the M9A3 pistol, a totally modernized model of the M9: new internals, modular grips, manufacturing facility rail, and a redesigned security that solved some long-standing points. Even higher, Beretta provided it for lower than the unique M9’s value.

However in 2015, the Military flat-out rejected the proposal with out even testing it. Why? As a result of by then, the Military had already dedicated to ranging from scratch with a brand new weapon system—one which prioritized modularity, equipment, and flexibility for a variety of customers and missions.

Beretta argued that upgrading to the M9A3 might save the federal government lots of of hundreds of thousands. However the Military wasn’t focused on saving an outdated platform—it wished a clear slate.

The Modular Handgun System (MHS) Trials: SIG vs. GLOCK

The Military’s Modular Handgun System (MHS) competitors kicked off with an extended checklist of necessities: adaptability for left- and right-handed customers, compatibility with suppressors, straightforward mounting of optics, completely different grip sizes, and extra. Opposite to what many within the gun group believed, the competitors wasn’t rigged in favor of SIG’s chassis-based hearth management unit (FCU). The Military didn’t demand a chassis system—it simply wished flexibility.

That’s why GLOCK made it to the ultimate spherical with its 19X—a stable, rugged hybrid that met most necessities, even with no chassis FCU. In truth, in line with the Authorities Accountability Workplace (GAO), GLOCK’s 19X was extra dependable and extra correct in some phases of testing.

So why didn’t it win?

Two causes: value and contract timing.

SIG provided a less expensive deal—over $100 million lower than GLOCK. And whereas the MHS assessments had been anticipated to go as much as 35,000 rounds, SIG was reportedly chosen after solely 12,500 rounds. GLOCK challenged the choice, arguing that longer-term flaws may need surfaced with prolonged testing. The GAO didn’t disagree, noting “a number of analysis errors,” however finally sided with the Military as a result of value financial savings.

Reside Stock Worth Checker

Early Reliability Issues: SIG’s Bumpy Begin

After adoption, the SIG P320 (M17/M18) rapidly confronted scrutiny. Stories surfaced of drop-fire points (a gun discharging when dropped) and uncommanded discharges. The Military downplayed the stories and stated all weapons met security requirements. SIG finally made design adjustments—updating the set off, slide geometry, internals, and journal parts.

A 2017 Pentagon report revealed that with normal ball ammo, the M17 averaged simply 343 rounds between stoppages—far decrease than the M9’s 1,700+. The compact M18 fared even worse at 197 rounds. However when examined with the navy’s most well-liked 147-grain hole factors, the brand new SIGs carried out a lot better—approaching 2,000 rounds between failures. Nonetheless, the early hiccups and ongoing lawsuits proceed to solid a shadow over the platform.

Was the Military Too Hasty?

Trying again, there are legitimate considerations:

The Military refused to even think about Beretta’s cheaper, upgraded M9A3.
The testing course of was minimize quick.
GLOCK’s protest highlighted potential flaws that will have gone unaddressed.
SIG’s preliminary efficiency with ball ammo was questionable—but the choice was locked in.

To be truthful, it’s not the primary time a brand new navy pistol had issues. Even the M9 had slide separation points early in its service life. And SIG did repair most of the reliability issues inside a 12 months or two.

Nonetheless, it’s truthful to ask: was saving $100 million well worth the trade-off in testing rigor?

Closing Ideas

Whether or not you’re workforce SIG, workforce GLOCK, or nonetheless rocking a basic Beretta, one factor’s clear: the Military’s transfer to interchange the M9 wasn’t nearly efficiency—it was about modernization, modularity, and long-term prices.

However as James Reeves rightly factors out, we’re nonetheless residing with the implications of that call. Lawsuits are mounting. Controversy continues. And troopers are those carrying the outcomes.

What do you assume? Did the Military make the fitting name? Or did they rush a half-tested platform into service to avoid wasting a buck?

Hat tip to James Reeves for sparking this dialog and breaking all of it down in his detailed video embeded above. Watch it for those who haven’t already—it’s important viewing for anybody who cares about how choices are made in navy procurement.