by Mishaco (and wikipedia)
Alright, this week I've been very pressed for time, so I am phoning this one in a bit. Specifically, i lifted the History section from wikipedia, with some changes and additions from myself. I have my own comments and opinions below though. Just this week I've had a lot of things at work to occupy my time, but I had to do....something...to celebrate my new (to me) German PTR44 semi-auto rifle. I am also doing a look back at the GSG STG44-22, and comparing both to original WWII rifles.
Overview:
MP 43, MP 44, and StG 44 were different designations for what was essentially the same rifle with minor updates in production. The variety in nomenclatures resulted from the complicated bureaucracy in Nazi Germany. Developed from the Mkb 42(H) "machine carbine," the StG44 combined the characteristics of a carbine, submachine gun, and automatic rifle. StG is an abbreviation of Sturmgewehr. According to the legend, the name was chosen personally by Adolf Hitler for propaganda reasons and literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e. "assault") an enemy position," although some sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the order. After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation "assault rifle" became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm. Over the course of its production, there were minor changes to the butt stock, muzzle nut, shape of the front sight base and stepping of the barrel.
The rifle was chambered for the 7.92×33mm Kurz cartridge. This shorter version of the German standard (7.92x57mm) rifle round, in combination with the weapon's selective-fire design, provided a compromise between the controllable firepower of a submachine gun at close quarters with the accuracy and power of a Karabiner 98k bolt action rifle at intermediate ranges. While the StG44 had less range and power than the more powerful infantry rifles of the day, Army studies had shown that few combat engagements occurred at more than 300 m and the majority within 200 m. Full-power rifle cartridges were excessive for the vast majority of uses for the average soldier. Only a trained specialist, such as a sniper, or soldiers equipped with machine guns which fired multiple rounds at a known or suspected target could make full use of the standard rifle round's range and power.
The British were critical of the weapon, saying that the receiver could be bent and the bolt locked up by the mere act of knocking a leaning rifle onto a hard floor. A late-war U.S. assessment derided the weapon as "bulky" and "unhandy", prone to jamming, and meant to be thrown away if the soldier could not maintain it.[12] Many of these criticisms are more a testimonial of the Allied aversion rather than an accurate view of the weapon's characteristics, which were proven highly effective during combat in the war.[13]
Development History:
In the late 19th century, small-arms cartridges had become able to fire accurately at long distances. Smokeless powder propelling small jacketed bullets were lethal out to 2,000 metres (2,200 yd). This was beyond the range a shooter could engage a target with open sights, as a man-sized target would be completely blocked by the front sight blade. Only units of riflemen firing in salvos could hit grouped soft targets at those ranges. That fighting style was taken over by the widespread introduction of machine guns to make use of the powerful cartridges to suppress the enemy at long range. Weapons for short range were semi-automatic pistols, and later automatic submachine guns, firing small pistol rounds. The gap in cartridge ranges caused research into creating an intermediate round. This type of ammunition was being considered as early as 1892, but militaries at the time were still fixated on increasing the maximum range and velocity of bullets from their rifles.
In the spring of 1918, Hauptmann (Capt.) Piderit, part of the Gewehrprüfungskommission (Small Arms Proofing Committee) of the German General Staff in Berlin, submitted a paper arguing for the introduction of an intermediate round in the German Army with a suitable firearm. He pointed out that firefights rarely took place beyond 800 metres (870 yd), about half the 2 km (1.2 mi) range of the 7.92×57mm round from a Mauser Model 1898 or Maxim MG 08. A smaller, shorter, and less powerful round would save materials, allow soldiers to carry more ammunition, and increase firepower. Less recoil would allow semi-automatic or even fully automatic select-fire rifles, although in his paper he called it a 'Maschinenpistole.' The German Army showed no interest, as it already had the MP 18 to fire 9 mm pistol rounds and did not want to create a new cartridge.
In 1923, the German Army set out requirements for a Mauser 98 replacement. It had to be smaller and lighter than the Mauser, have similar performance out to 400 metres (440 yd), and have a magazine with a 20 or 30 round capacity. Bavarian company Rheinisch-Westfälische Sprengstoff (RWS) experimented with rounds in the 1920s, and German companies developing intermediate ammunition for aerial machine guns showed interest. Development of the future infantry rifle did not start until the 1930s. RWS offered two rounds, one with a 7 mm bullet and one with an 8 mm bullet, both in a 46 mm case. German company Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken had the 7×39.1mm round, and Gustav Genschow & Co (Geco) proposed a 7.75×39.5mm round. Geco's automatic carbine was the Model A35, a further development of the SG29 semi-automatic rifle. The weapon was complicated and unsafe to handle.
The German Government started its own intermediate round and weapon program soon after. German ammunition maker Polte of Magdeburg was commissioned to develop the rounds in April 1938 and signed a contract with the Heereswaffenamt (HWA). At the same time, the HWA contracted C.G. Haenel of Suhl to create a weapon for the round. HWA requirements were for a rifle that was shorter and with equal or less weight to the Kar 98k and as accurate out to 400 metres (440 yd); and be select-fire with a rate of fire under 450 rpm. It should be rifle grenade compatible, reliable, maintainable, and have a "straightforward design". Fifty rifles were to be delivered for field testing in early 1942.
At the start of the Second World War, German infantry were equipped with weapons comparable to those of most other military forces. A typical infantry unit was equipped with a mix of bolt action rifles and some form of light or medium machine guns. One difference from other armies was the emphasis on the machine gun as the primary infantry weapon. In contrast, allied doctrine centered around the rifleman, with machine guns employed as support and point-defense weapons. German units tended to be machine gun "heavy"; carrying more ammunition for the machine gun than for the rifles; using belt ammunition for their more modern section-level weapons to maintain a higher rate of fire; and generally thinking of the rifle as a support weapon. Although newer rifle designs had been studied on several occasions, the infantry squad primarily centered around the machine gun.
One problem with this mix was that the standard rifles were too large to be effectively used by mechanized and armored forces, where they were difficult to maneuver in the cramped spaces of an armored vehicle. Submachine guns such as the MP 28, MP 38, and MP 40 were issued to augment infantry rifle use and increase individual soldiers' firepower, but suffered from a distinct lack of range and accuracy beyond 100 metres (110 yd). A small fast-firing weapon would have been useful in this role, but again the need did not seem pressing.
The issue arose once again during the invasion of the Soviet Union. The Red Army had been in the process of replacing its own bolt action rifles in the immediate pre–war era. Increasing numbers of semi-automatic Tokarev SVT-38 and SVT-40s were reaching Red Army units, though issue was generally restricted to elite units and non-commissioned officers. Submachine guns were extremely widespread, and issued on a far larger scale; some Soviet rifle companies were completely equipped with PPSh-41 submachine guns.
This experience with high volumes of hand-held automatic 'assault' fire forced German commanders to rethink their small arms requirements. The German army had been attempting to introduce semi-automatic weapons of its own, notably the Gewehr 41, but these early rifles proved troublesome in service, and production was insufficient to meet forecasted requirements. Several attempts had been made to introduce lightweight machine guns or automatic rifles for these roles, but invariably recoil from the powerful 7.92x57mm round made them too difficult to control in automatic fire.
The German solution was to use a round of intermediate power, between that of a full-power rifle cartridge and pistol ammunition. Experiments with several such intermediate rounds had been going on since the 1930s, but had been constantly rejected for use by the army. By 1941, it was becoming clear that action needed to be taken, and one of the experimental rounds, the Polte 8x33mm Kurzpatrone ("short cartridge") was selected. To minimize logistical problems, the Mauser 8 mm rifle cartridge was used as the basis for the final 7.92x33mm intermediate round, which also utilized an aerodynamic spitzer rifle bullet design.
the MKB.42(h):
Contracts for rifles firing the 7.92x33mm round were sent to both Walther and Haenel (whose design group was headed by Hugo Schmeisser), who were asked to submit prototype weapons under the name Maschinenkarabiner 1942 (MKb 42, literally "machine (ie. fully automatic) carbine"). Both designs were similar, using a gas-operated action, with both semi-automatic and fully automatic firing modes.
In December 1940, a prototype rifle from Haenel and Walther was tested by the HWA at Kummersdorf. It had multiple jams, several barrels got bulged, and one had a catastrophic failure. Testers blamed the results on poor quality ammunition. In February 1942, 10 million 7.92 mm rounds were ordered for field testing. On 9 July 1942, field and comparative tests were conducted with the ammunition and Haenel MKb 42(H) rifle. 3,654 shots were fired; 11 cases were separated, 67 rounds were duds (56 fired on second trial), and many other rounds stovepipe jammed. Failures were blamed on the prototype stage of the weapon's design.[14]
The original prototype of Haenel's design, the MKb 42(H), fired from an open bolt and used a striker for firing. The receiver and trigger housing with pistol grip were made from steel stampings, which were attached to the barrel assembly on a hinge, allowing the weapon to be folded open for quick disassembly and cleaning. The Haenel design proved superior to Walther's MKb 42(W), and the army then asked Haenel for another version incorporating a list of minor changes designated MKb 42(H). One was to include lugs for mounting a standard bayonet, another to change the pitch of the rifling. A production run of these modified versions was sent to the field in November 1942, and the users appreciated it with a few reservations. Another set of modifications added a hinged cover over the ejection port to keep it clean in combat, and rails to mount a telescopic sight. A run of these modified MKb 42(H)s in late 1942 and early 1943 produced 11,833 guns.
Ultimately it was recommended that a hammer firing system operating from a closed bolt similar to Walther's design be incorporated. The gas expansion chamber over the barrel was deemed unnecessary, and was removed from successive designs, as was the underbarrel bayonet lug.
By March 1943, 2734 MKb 42(H) were accepted into service, followed by 2179 in April alone and 3044 in May; these numbers correlate well with the Haenel estimates for these months (2000 and respectively 3000). Additionally, Haenel estimated that 3,000 were made in June and 1,000 in July, resulting in a high estimate of 12,000 units for the MKb 42(H). However, the Haenel production figures from June 1943 onward do not differentiate between the last batches of MKb 42(H) and the first batches of MP 43/1. Other sources seem to accept only the more conservative estimate of 8,000 units. How many Walther MKb 42(W) were produced is even more uncertain. Some sources suggested as many as 8,000, but conservative estimates put the number at about 200, and say that most of these remained in the Walther factory until the end of the war. Production began in November 1942 and was to reach 10,000 per month by March 1943. The total number of MKb42(H)s manufactured between November 1942 and September 1943 was 12,000 rifles, with only about 1,000 produced per month.
The MKb 42(H) was mostly used on the Eastern front. By one account, the gun saw action as early as April 1942 when 35 of the only 50 prototypes then in existence were parachuted into the Kholm Pocket.
the MP 43, MP 44, & StG 44
http://i.imgur.com/TeS98Ll.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Ed8n7o4.jpg
(an early standard production rifle marked MP.43)
As work moved forward to incorporate the new firing system, development of the MKB.42(h) halted when Hitler suspended all new rifle programs due to administrative infighting within the Third Reich. Hitler ordered that newer submachine guns were to be built, and he strongly disagreed with the use of the Kurz ammunition. In Feb. 1943 the MP43/1 was demonstrated for Hitler. Reports claim he turned pale when he saw it, and remarked "Now you come with the same stuff again which I don't want to see anymore, even though you gave your baby a new name." However, the rebuke was ignored by the Supreme Command of the Army - and troop trials continued. To keep the MKb 42(H) development program alive, the Waffen Amt (Armament Office) re-designated the weapon as the Maschinenpistole 43 (MP 43) and, making a few improvements, billed the weapon as an upgrade to existing submachine guns.
Much time was wasted trying to make the MP 43 a replacement for the Kar 98k rifle. This goal was eventually realized to be impossible for several reasons: the MP 43 cartridge was too weak to fire rifle grenades; the MP 43 was too inaccurate for sniping; and the MP 43 was too short for bayonet fighting. In September 1943, it was decided that the MP 43 would supplement rather than replace the Kar 98k. As a result, the optical sight base, grenade-launching extended muzzle thread, and bayonet lug were removed from the design.
Adolf Hitler eventually discovered the designation deception and halted the program again. In March 1943, he permitted it to recommence for evaluation purposes only. Running for six months until September 1943, the evaluation produced positive results, and Hitler allowed the MP 43 program to continue in order to make mass production possible. Finally in Oct. 1943 Hitler agreed that the MP40 should be replaced by the MP43. "The change has to occur expeditiously," he ordered. However, he also made it clear that the full power semi-auto G.43 was still the weapon that should replace the K98k as the general issue rifle of Germany.
The first MP 43s were distributed to the Waffen-SS; in October 1943, some were issued to the 93rd Infantry Division on the Eastern Front. Production and distribution continued to different units. In April 1944, Hitler took some interest in the weapon tests and ordered the weapon (with some minor updates) to be re-designated as the MP 44. In July 1944, at a meeting of the various army heads about the Eastern Front, when Hitler asked what they needed, a general exclaimed, "More of these new rifles!". The exclamation caused some confusion (Hitler's response is reputed to have been "What new rifle?"), but once Hitler saw the MP 44 being demonstrated, he was impressed and gave it the title Sturmgewehr. Seeing the possibility of a propaganda gain, the rifle was again renamed as the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44), to highlight the new class of weapon it represented. The designation translates to "Storm (Assault) rifle, model 1944", thereby introducing the term "assault rifle".
A common belief of Hitler's influence over the Sturmgewehr was that he was against an intermediate rifle round. In reality, he could have ordered the project to be cancelled entirely if he had wanted to, especially if it had actually been hidden from him. Numerous reports and company correspondence reveal frequent presentation of the rifle's stages of development to Hitler. Rather than being opposed to the entire idea, his apprehension seemed to be from reluctance to send a new weapon to the front in too small numbers. Industry would not be able to replace some 12 million Kar 98k rifles in a short time, and the already strained logistics structure would have to support another cartridge. The Sturmgewehr was faster, easier, and less material consuming to make than a Kar 98k, but required more complicated machinery. Without sub-suppliers to quickly produce components, companies could not manufacture sufficient numbers to replace the Kar 98k quickly. Introducing the new assault rifle in small amounts that would not make an impression on the front would be counter-productive. Hitler instead wanted to introduce it on the largest scale possible, which has been misinterpreted as his resistance to new technology.
http://i.imgur.com/1V197KU.jpg
(A partially disassembled MP.44)
Production soon began with the first batches of the new rifle being shipped to troops on the Eastern Front. By the end of the war, a total of 425,977 StG 44 variants of all types had been produced and work had commenced on a successor rifle, the StG45(m). The assault rifle proved a valuable weapon, especially on the Eastern front, where it was first deployed. A properly trained soldier with a StG 44 had an improved tactical repertoire, in that he could effectively engage targets at longer ranges than with an MP 40, but be much more useful than the Kar 98k in close combat, as well as provide covering fire like a light machine gun. It was also found to be exceptionally reliable in the extreme cold of the Russian winter. The StG 44's rate of fire varied between 550 and 600 rpm.
The 1st Infantry Division of Army Group South and 32nd Infantry Division of Army Group North were selected to be issued the rifle, both being refitted from heavy losses on the Eastern Front. Ammunition shortages meant the 1st ID was the only division fully equipped with it. The Kar 98k was retained as a specialist weapon for sniping and launching rifle grenades. MP 40s were used by vehicle and artillery crews and officers. The StG 44 was issued to all infantry soldiers.
A primary use of the MP44/StG44 was to counter the Soviet PPS and PPSh-41 submachine guns, which used the 7.62x25mm Tokarev round. These cheap, mass-produced weapons used a 71-round drum magazine or 35-round box magazine and though shorter-ranged than the Kar98k rifle, were more effective weapons in close-quarter engagements. The StG 44, while lacking the range of the Kar 98k, had a considerably longer range than the PPS/PPSh submachine guns, a comparable rate of fire, an ability to switch between a fully automatic and a default semi-automatic fire mode and surprising accuracy. The StG 44 was an intermediate weapon for the period; the muzzle velocity from its 419 mm (16.5 in) barrel was 685 m/s (2,247.4 ft/s), compared to 760 m/s (2,493 ft/s) of the Karabiner 98k, 744 m/s (2,440.9 ft/s) of the British Bren, 600 m/s (1,968.5 ft/s) of the M1 carbine, and 365 m/s (1,197.5 ft/s) achieved by the MP40. Furthermore, the StG44's inline design gave it controllability even on full-auto. In short the StG44 provided the individual user with unparalleled firepower compared to that of all earlier handheld firearms, warranting other countries to soon embrace the assault rifle concept.
The StG 44 was employed for accurate short-range rapid-fire shooting (similar to how the MP 18 was used when it went into service). The assault rifles in a squad added firepower when the machine gun had to cease fire or move. When attacking a position, Kar 98k riflemen would use grenades against it at close-range, while StG 44 riflemen would fire in rapid semi-automatic or automatic bursts to keep the defenders suppressed.
The magazine follower spring had a short service life, so soldiers were ordered to load no more than 25 rounds to extend the reloadable life of the spring. In January 1945, a magazine was introduced fitted with a fixed plug to restrict its capacity to 25 rounds.
http://i.imgur.com/A53VOPG.jpg
(A late production rifle marked STG.44)
One unusual addition to the design was the Krummlauf; a bent barrel attachment for rifles with a periscope sighting device for shooting around corners from a safe position. It was produced in several variants: an "I" version for infantry use, a "P" version for use in tanks (to cover the dead areas in the close range around the tank, to defend against assaulting infantry), versions with 30°, 45°, 60° and 90° bends, a version for the StG 44 and one for the MG 42. Only the 30° "I" version for the StG 44 was produced in any numbers. The bent barrel attachments had very short lifespans – approx. 300 rounds for the 30° version, and 160 rounds for the 45° variant. The 30° model was able to achieve a 35x35 cm grouping at 100 m.
The Sturmgewehr was also at times fitted with the Zielgerät 1229 infrared aiming device, also known by its codename Vampir ("vampire"). This device consisted of a large scope, rather like modern starlight scopes, and a large infra-red lamp on top, the scope being able to pick up the infra-red that would be invisible to the naked eye. The user had to carry a transformer backpack powered by a battery fitted inside the gas mask canister. Electric cables connected the power unit with the IR reflector, with the cathode ray tube mounted on the rifle imaging IR from the spotlight. The Vampyr had only 15 minutes of battery life, but was able to sight within 200 meters in total darkness. A conical flash hider was added to the barrel to keep the muzzle blast from blinding the shooter.
There really were no clear distinctions between the MP.43, MP.44, and STG.44. Production changes and updates occurred, but were not associated with anydesignation changes. Officially, the MP.43 was renamed to MP.44 on April 25, 1944, and it in turn became the STG.44 on October 22 of the same year. However, the new names were only on paper, and did not begin appearing on the weapons themselves until later. In fact, all 3 names would continue to be used until the end of the war. Ones marked MP.44 started showing up in late 1944, and the STG.44 rollmarking would only appear on rifles built in 1945. Even a small unknown number were built late in the war with MP.45 stamped on them. In the end, the majority would be marked MP.44. All were the same model of select fire rifle.
After the war, Hugo Schmeisser claimed that 424,000 MP 43/MP 44/StG 44 rifles were built between June 1943 and April 1945 in four plants: 185,000 by C.G. Haenel in Suhl; 55,000 by J.P. Sauer & Sohn in Suhl; 104,000 in Erfurt; and 80,000 by Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG in Steyr, Austria. This was less than the 1.5 million ordered (hey people on wikipedia can do basic math afterall!), and far less than the 4 million planned.
Post-war use:
The Sturmgewehr remained in use with the East German Nationale Volksarmee with the designation MPi.44 until it was eventually replaced with variants of the AK-47 assault rifle. The Volkspolizei used it until approximately 1962 when it was replaced by the PPSh-41. Other countries to use the StG 44 after World War II included the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, where it was used until being replaced first by the self-loading Vz.52 and later the select fire Vz.58. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia used it for decades, finally replacing it with domestic AK47 variants in the 1970s. Actually though, units of the Yugoslavian 63rd Paratroop Battalion were equipped with it until the 1980s, possibly keeping the STG.44 in active service longer than any other professional military unit. Even after it had been retired from all standard militaries, the old Sturmgewehr would appear in the hands of rebels and guerillas all over the world, but most notably in Africa and the Middle East. In the end, the only reason some aren't still being used is the fact that there is virtually no surplus ammunition left for them anywhere in the world. Argentina manufactured their own trial versions of the StG 44 made by CITEFA in the late 1940s and early 1950s, but instead adopted the FN FAL in 1955, because it used the then more common and powerful 7.62x51mm NATO round, which also lacked connections with the Third Reich.
Of course, the STG.44's largest post-war role was its influence and legacy. Its very name "assault rifle" has been used to represent a whole class of military smallarm; a class the STG.44 was itself the sole pioneering member of. Its general specs of a select fire infantry weapon, firing an intermediate caliber round, feeding from a detachable magazine, air cooled, closed bolt, pistol gripped, and with a medium length barrel...all of those could be used to define dozens of military rifles from the latter half of the 20th century. The AK47 and G3 most directly show how they were influenced by the STG; however rifles like the FAL, Vz.58, and even the M16 all owe their existance to it as well. Today, the Sturmgewehr's historical importance really can not be overstated.
the Sturmgewehr in the field
The MP/STG44 was issued with 6 30 round magazines, carried in two sets of magazine pouches made of canvis and leather. Late in the war, these pouches were sometimes made from burlap instead. Ammunition came in boxes of 15 rounds each. A special leather sling was designed for the rifle, however it could accept a standard K98 or MP.40 sling as well. The buttstock had a vertical compartment carved into it, which was closed with a spring loaded trap door. Typically, several items were stored there. These included a tool which could remove both the gas plug and steel handguard, a compact magazine loading tool, a pull-through cleaning rope, and a rolled up instruction manual for soldiers in the field. It is a rather small compartment, and it is quite amazing so many items managed to fit in there. Most of the time, the weapon's threaded barrel was covered by a simple muzzle nut, though several accessories were made to screw on in its place. Also, some STG.44s made towards the end of the war lacked threading altogether.
The MP/STG was constructed of mostly stamped and welded steel, which was made very thick, so lower quality metal could be used. Because of this, it was quite heavy at 11.5 lbs with an empty magazine. This meant it weighed overa pound more than the K98 short rifle. The flip side to this fact however, was that it was quite controllable in full-auto thanks to its weight. It used a long-stroke gas piston, which was fixed to the bolt carrier (i.e. op-rod). The charging handle was also part of this assembly. The bolt itself was quite heavy and locked into the receiver with a tilting action like many other self-loading rifles of the period. The weapon used a single long, massive return spring; which was housed inside the buttstock. The buttstock itself was made of wood and the pistol grip panels were made of either bakelite or wood also. The handguard was made from a single sheet of stamped and curled sheet steel. The front sight was drift adjustable for windage and protected by a removable hood. The rear sight was slide adjustable for elevation out to 800 meters. The dustcover was spring loaded, and therefore automatic. There were separate controls for safe/ready and single shot/automatic fire. There was no bolt hold open feature of any kind built into either the receiver or magazine itself, so the bolt would close on an empty chamber when the magazine was exhausted. The weapon was far less complicated than the G.43 rifle, with fewer pins, springs, and assemblies. It was easier to disassemble and maintain too. The whole thing came apart with the press of a single push pin, which would later inspire the West German G3 battle rifle.
demilled WWII MP.44
http://i.imgur.com/H7T5d7R.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/IfFQUU2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jxzXwFx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/v7sdlwf.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/e3BgfIT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/gJnnny9.jpg
This is an original MP.44 demilled to current BATF requirements. I have been using it to compare various parts with those of my PTR44.
the PTR SSD PTR.44
http://i.imgur.com/vTaMAo6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8aT6lv0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9Q5B0nH.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PybkuY7.jpg
This is my very own PTR44, manufactured in Germany by SSD and imported into the USA by PTR Inc.
PTR imported 200 of these rifles back in 2009. Of those 150 were sold to the public, with the remaining 50 either broken down for parts or given away as test guns to firearms reviewers. Many of the stripped receivers were later sold off by Recon-Ordnance for people to use with their original WWII MP.44 parts kits to make legal semi-autos. I remember my friend reading the ad for these back then, and lusting after one so hard that i felt like i had a case of blue balls. They were $4,299.95 back then, factory new, with 1 - 30 rd SSD magazine. They also advertised MP.38s, which never materialized.
The PTR44 is chambered for the original 8mm Kurz round, and there was a time when i thought an STG.44 would be neat chambered in something else such as 7.62x39mm, 7.62x33mm M1 Carbine, or even 9x19mm Parabellum. However, after reading how closely linked the Sturmgewehr's development was to the 7.92x33mm round itself; i understand now that you really can not have one without the other. Plus it really is a really nifty looking bullet; so wide and short. Plus, the skinny and long mags it feeds from are definitely unique. So even though its expensive and relatively hard to find, I agree SSD made the right call.
Honestly, this is a firearm i never ever thought I would be able to own. Recently though, I found one with a very motivated seller. We chatted and got on just fine, but all of the issues associated with the PTR44 scared me. So I gave him a pretty low-ball offer. Much to my surprise, he accepted it and even picked up shipping. Less than a week later, it was in my hands! He sent it with 7 magazines, an original sling, takedown tool, the original PTR manual, a reprint German buttstock manual, blank fire adapter, several boxes of blank ammo, and a single box of what turned out to be original Nazi-German 8mm Kurz dated 1945. He shipped it quickly and well packaged. It is in great condition, well oiled, and witha clean gas system. It has been fired, this I knew before buying it. The dealer I bought it from told me its former owner was a big-time German collector and reinactor.
After comparing the various parts on the PTR44 with those in my MP.44 parts kit, I have to say I am extremely impressed with how closely SSD replicated the whole thing. Not just the outside, but even the internals are the same down to the bolt group and fire control parts. It weighs 11.5 lbs just as an original would, and has the same dimentions and specs. It has an authentic buttstock and pistol grips, even though these are US made as part of its 922(r) count. It takes original WWII magazines, and in fact all the original parts that I've tried in it drop right on. It has a very nice feeling trigger and even has a real selector switch, which is perminantly fixed in the single shot position (internally, the FCG is missing all of the parts associated with full-auto though, so its perfectly legal). So as far as being a replica, the PTR44 knocks it out of the park. It really is made to original specs, except for again, lacking the FA feature. Well, that and the scope rail on the side. That isn't original spec. for a production MP.44, though it will take a ZF4 scope and i understand why they included it for modern shooters.
However, as most of us know by now, there have been serious issues with these firearms. Probably the biggest one is reports of the bolt carrier (op-rod) breaking. This is followed by some bolts cracking. Both issues have been attributed to incorrect heat treatment. Other issues include increased wear on the underside of the receiver where the hammer comes through, poorly fitted FCG parts, and shitty magazines that don't fit or feed properly. Really all of these issues can be attributed to American made parts PTR was forced to install to make the rifle comply with 922(r). These include the buttstock, grip panels, hammer, disconnector, trigger, magazine follower and magazine floorplate. Though many problems have appeared, other owners insist that their PTR44s have fired hundreds of rounds without issue. I tried installing the bolt group from my kit into my PTR44, and I was happy to find out that mine is one of the ones that does not have the smaller end section. It seems that some of them had this done, so an original full-auto bolt carrier could not be installed. So worst case, I will just start using an original bolt group if my carrier or bolt give problems. The 2 original SSD mags mine came with do fit loosely, but the other 5 seem higher quality reproductions and fit much more securely. I am hoping this means they at least will feed reliably. I asked the seller if he could contact the former owner to ask if he had had any work done to this rifle or if he knew of any issues I should be aware of. I was saddened to learn the owner had died last October, and this dealer was selling off his guns for his estate. He did say the owner took very good care of his guns, and often took them to gunsmiths for upgrades. So I won't be learning anything more than I already know. I would like to think that guy, since he was a serious collector and history buff, would be happy that one of his prized guns will be well cared for and loved in its new home. In the end, for what I paid, even if I have to replace something, I will still come out ahead.
For a closer look at the PTR44, checkout Forgotten Weapons's review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCyD9hrqK84
...And one more PTR44 video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3hzTN4CMjs
the ATI GSG STG44-22
http://i.imgur.com/O0t3cNS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/n5rjrru.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jjQlWIZ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7qzPpJd.jpg
These are photos of a factory new STG44-22, which is built in Germany by GSG and imported into the USA by ATI.
The STG44-22 is quite a nice replica, especially for the money. When these first came out, they were $550 but now days, CDNN has them for around $350 new. It is weighted close to an original at just at 10 lbs, but despite GSG's attempt to weight it, it is still about 1.5 lbs lighter than either an original or PTR44. Good try though, and they put a very nice wood stock on it, which is made very close to an original, right down to the trap door and steel brackets. The receiver is a cast zinc alloy, and so its details aren't quite as sharp and exact as they could be. It does have a spring loaded dustcover and henged trigger frame, even a faux fire selector; so again, good effort on GSG's part. The rear sight isn't the same as original, and the bolt notch is entirely a modern thing. The front end is a single cast piece sleaved around a small diameter barrel. I wish they had at least made actual muzzle threads for those with .22 LR suppressors and to make it that much more authentic, but you can't have everything i suppose. The handguard is stamped steel and it does have realistic sling swivels. The .22 magazine is roughly the same dimentions as a real one, but it is made of polymer and has that goofy loading button on the side I really could have done without. It holds 24 rounds as standard.
For more info, checkout My review of the STG44-22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW_biGt_zxU
Military Arms Channel's look at the STG44-22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSQ1VtUVjIU
...And a comparison of the STG44-22 with an original STG.44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrxyx4XF0B4
The official website for the Mishaco Youtube channel. Visit youtube.com/MishacoOBA for more.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
SIG SG55X Family of Rifles (SG550, SG551, SG553)
SIG SG55X Family of Rifles (SG550, SG551, SG553)
by Mishaco
http://i.imgur.com/mYQZ1rU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fe7XTuv.jpg
(My Swiss Family: SG550-1SP on top, SG551-2SP SWAT in the middle, & SG553-2P on bottom)
Development History:
http://i.imgur.com/FeUUh87.jpg
(Standard Swiss military issue STGW.90 assault rifle)
The PE90 was Switzerland's attempt to adopt a modern small caliber assault rifle, which was both lighter and less expensive than the P57. I am not sure exactly how well they succeded there, but the result definitely was one of the finest assault rifles ever devised.
In 1978, the Swiss military decided to look into the possibility of adopting a small caliber, select-fire rifle to replace the full power and fullsized P57 battle rifle. The new design had to be accurate out to at least 300 meters, less expensive to manufacture, lighter, more compact, and more modular than the older design. Two versions were called for; a standard full length rifle for the infantry, and a so-called 'Headquaters' carbine for use in special situations.
http://i.imgur.com/gquPdah.jpg
(SIG SG540 Prototype rifle)
Schweizerische Industrie-Gesellschaft Neuhausen (SIG) had already been working on a .223/5.56mm caliber assault rifle for some time by this point. In the 1960s, it released the SG530-1 prototype, which had both a gas piston and roller delayed bolt. Next, the SG540 came out. It kept the gas piston and switched to an AK47 style rotating bolt with 2 large locking lugs. It featured an adjustable gas system, HK style drum diopter sights, fixed polymer buttstock, and lightweight bipod. Later, a version would be offered with a folding stock made from tubular steel. To allow it to be both easier and cheaper to mass produce, it was built with more stamped metal parts and even some made from investment castings. The SG540 actually went into limited production, with the French firm of Manurhin purchasing a manufacturing license. The French military bought several thousand of these domestically produced SG540s, using them as stop-gap rifles until the FAMAS bullpup was fully operational. Additionally, Beretta used it as the basis for its own AR70 assault rifle, which was eventually adopted in a modified form by the Italian military as the AR70/90.
http://i.imgur.com/1OamZug.jpg
(SIG SG543 trials carbine)
In 1979, SIG submitted its latest assault rifle model for military trials. Actually, it submitted two versions. The SG541 had a rifle length barrel and gas system, and the SG543 was a compact carbine. The SIG design competed against the C42 submitted by Waffenfabrik Bern. It officially was selected for further development in 1983. At the same time, the 5.6mm GP90 cartridge was chosen as Switzerland's new service round. GP90 is very similar to 5.56mm NATO but just different enough not to be the same. It has a bullet weight of 63g, rather than the original American 55g or later NATO 62g.
Originally, both the new rifle and cartridge were to go into service immediately; however, manufacturing complications and budget cuts drastically extended the process. In 1984, the SG541 received several design improvements and was redesignated as the SG550. The gas system was improved and made more corrosion resistant and a new pattern of skeletonized polymer stock was introduced. Also, a four way fire mode selector was made standard: safe, single, 3 rd burst, and full-auto. These changes were carried over to the SG543 too, and it became the SG551. Finally in 1986, the Swiss military took delivery of the first batch of the new rifles, which were officially designated as Sturmgewehr Model of 1990. It would take over a decade for the entire military to be so re-equipped though.
The PE90 features typical Swiss quality and attention to detail. While definitely less time consuming and resource intensive to build than SiG's previous P57, it is still one of the most expensive 5.56mm caliber military rifles in the world. Tuned for optimal performance in the often fridgid Swiss Alps, it is highly reliable and durable. The SG550 has a long-stroke gas piston system and AK47 style rotating bolt. Despite this, it is quite accurate, especially at close to medium ranges. The standard rifle has a 20.8" long barrel, with intrigal flash hider and grenade ring. The inside of the flash hider is threaded to accept a blank firing device also. The gas system is adjustable with two settings, and under the gas block there is a P57 style bayonet lug. The light aluminium alloy bipod is attached to the long polymer handguard, and fits into grooves on its underside when not in use. The upper and lower receivers are made from stamped and welded steel, and the barrel screws into a machined front trunion. The charging handle is very similar to the AK47's but is rubber coated and upswept. It does reciprocate with the bolt, and rides inside a channel protected by a rubber dustcover. The mag release is virtually the same as the one on the P57, as are the takedown pins. The fire mode selector is ambidextrous, and much better placed than on the P57. There is an automatic last-round bolt hold open device, and external release lever. The trigger is quite light and smooth, and it is adjustable too. The trigger guard is made of stamped steel and can be folded up to either side, to reach the trigger if wearing thick gloves. The pistol grip is made of ribbed polymer and has a small storage compartment inside. The buttstock has an inner frame made of steel, with an outer shell of polymer and a ridged rubber buttplate. It easily folds to the right side and locks into a tab on the side of the handguard. Most Swiss military PE90s have dark green furniture, but many of the other variants come in black.
The P90 has HK style diopter sights, with a windage adjustable hooded front blade; and an elevation and windage adjustable rear drum with 3 apertures and a notch. Night sights are standard on all models, with a fold up front blade and two rear points as part of the drum's notch setting. Unlike the P57's sights, the ones on the PE90 do not fold, however they have a much lower profile. This also means they are much closer to the bore's axis. The firearm feeds from translucent polymer magazines, which have tabs on the side to lock multiple units together. The standard mag holds 20 rounds, and an extended 30 round version is available for special situations.
The PE90 disassembles easily and without the need for tools. Just open the upper and lower receivers by removing the rear takedown pin, then press down on the release lever and pull out the charging handle. The bolt group will fall out the back of the upper receiver. Rotate the bolt to separate it from the carrier. To remove the gas system, press the spring loaded detent and rotate the gas valve until it pulls out. Then the gas piston and recoil spring assembly falls out the front of the gas tube. If you want to remove the tube itself for a cleaning, just press the detent again and rotate the end of the tube until it too pulls free of the gas block. If you want to completely separate the upper and lower receivers, just remove the front takedown pin and there you go. All in pieces. At this point the handguards will easily come off too, as they are held on by the lower receiver. The buttstock is attached with a single long pivit pin, which can be knocked out with a punch and light hammer, but this isn't neccessary for cleaning.
http://i.imgur.com/055grDx.jpg
(SG55x Family Photo)
The standard rifle goes by several names and designations: STGW.90, PE90, P90, SG550, Fusil d'assaut 90, or more simply FASS90. Originally designed and manufactured by SIG, it has been built and sold under the Swiss Arms Neuhausen (SAN) brand name since 2000, when SiG sold its firearms division to the Lu¨ke & Ortmeier Group. Many versions and variants in the SG55x family exist today.
The SG550-1 is the STGW.90 designed for the 5.6mm 63g GP90 cartridge with a 1 in 10 twist rate. The SG550-2 on the otherhand is meant to fire the standard 62g 5.56mm NATO round and has a 1 in 7 twist rate. There is a DMR variant of the rifle called the 550-1 Sniper, with scope, 25.8" accurized barrel, fully adjustable trigger, adjustable stock, cheak rest, and more ergonomic and adjustable pistol grip; which are all standard features from the factory.
The carbine version is designated as the SG551 and has a 14.3" barrel, shortened gas system and handguards, no bayonet lug, and can not fire rifle grenades. The military designation for this version seems to be STGW.90k. It is in limited use with a few Swiss units such as the Infantry Grenadiers and the Para Recon Company. It too is made in -1 and -2 variants. The 'SWAT' carbine variant is designed for use in humid or wet environments, with a more corrosion resistant finish to many of its internal parts. The SG551 LB has an extended 17.9" barrel, which allows it to fire rifle grenades and mount a bayonet.
The SG552 is out of production now, but was an even shorter submachinegun sized version. It has sometimes been referred to as the SiG Commando by some users and in some promo material. It had a 8.9" barrel, fixed post style charging handle, removable flash hider, and redesigned recoil system with the spring in the back as in an AK47. Its handguards were made by manually cutting down the standard set used on the SG550, and then drilling 5 vent holes in each side to provide for additional cooling. Today, it has been replaced by the SG553, which has the same short barrel with muzzle threading, gas tube, and handguards; but uses a shortened SG550 recoil system and standard removable charging handle. Also it has a thinner gas piston than the standard 550/551, which is fluted to save on weight. Several different types of flash hider have been offered for this variant, including the original 4 prong, an updated 3 prong, and a Rotex suppressor compatable device. Both SMG sized firearms have been offered in a LB version, with a longer 13.6" barrel. The SG553 seems to only be offered in an all black colour scheme. The Swiss military adopted a limited number of the SG552-1 LB as the STGW.04, and later the SG553-1 LB as the STGW.04/07. They have been used by specialized type units such as paratroopers.
Modern SG55x versions are offered either with fixed diopter sights or with a weaver rail and folding backup iron sights. They can be had with the original pattern stamped steel lower, or one manufactured from machined aluminium. A 'NATO' version is offered, which feeds from all standard AR15/M16 type magazines. Quadrail handguards are an option, as is a stock which both folds and has an adjustable length of pull. A variant of the subcompact known as the SG553R is even available chambered for the 7.62x39mm (M43) Russian cartridge. Finally, most models are offered as a semi-auto only, with the 'SP' suffix added to the designation. For example, the SG550-2SP was the most popular civilian legal variant imported into the USA during the 1980s. A special carbine variant with an extended 16.1" barrel was very briefly exported to the USA in the late 1980s, designated as the SG551-2SP. Other SG551-2SPs though, such as those sold in Europe and to American law enforcement, had standard 14.3" carbine barrels.
The SG550-1 is still the standard issue rifle of the Swiss military today. It also uses many SG551-1 carbines and a few SG552/3-1 LB subcompacts when the need arrises. Law enforcement uses the series too, especially the SG551 carbine and the standard short barreled SG552 SMG. Adding up all versions and variants, it is estimated that over 600,000 SG55x firearms have been built in Switzerland to date, with production still on going. 450,000 STGW.90 assault rifles were delivered to the Swiss military, while 35,000 civilian SG550 rifles have been sold within and outside of Switzerland.
The pattern has undergone very few changes since its introduction in 1986. Nevertheless, a few design tweeks have been introduced such as a slightly larger magazine well. Also, the furniture was redesigned in the early 1990s. The buttstock's mold lines became less pronounced, the underside was reshaped, the sling loop was moved to the centerline, and the buttplate lost much of its concave curviture. Finally, the vent holes in the handguard were reshaped. I've also heard tell that the shade of OD Green used was slightly changed.
The STGW.90 has proven itself a fine standard issue firearm in the Swiss military. It is highly reliable and durable, and plenty accurate for its class. It is easy to clean and maintain. This is a heavy rifle to be firing a small diameter bullet, but the flip side is that it has low felt recoil and is very controllable in full-auto. The barrel makes it a bit long by modern standards, but at least it has an excellent folding stock. Some dislike its ergonomics, mostly the placement of its safety selector and rock & lock magazines. The mags themselves are top notch though. They are very lightweight, durable, and easy to load by hand. They have survived many torture tests, including being frozen and dropped from a height while fully loaded. The one part of the rifle that does seem substandard is the light bipod, which is frankly rather useless and likes to fold on its own. One also should not forget that this firearm hasn't really been put through intensive, real world combat, as has the AK47, FN FAL, M16, HK G3, Steyr AUG, or many others. Still, the STGW.90 is a good fit for Switzerland.
Semi-Auto SG55x's in the USA:
Preban Swiss made SG550s bring at least $8,000 in the USA today, with most going for closer to $10,000. As for preban SG551s? since so few were brought in, they go for even more, say approximately $12,000-$15,000. This is why the American SIG556 and SIG551-A1 clones look so damn attractive to most people in the market for something like an STGW.90. Afterall, they use the same internal parts, even if they are US, rather than Swiss made. The differences are mostly external: furniture, barrel profile, sights, etc.
Back in the 1980s, between 450 and 500 SG550 rifles came into the country. Most were the SG550-2SP with its 1in7 twist rate, though a few SG550-1SPs did come over with the original 1in10 twist. In addition to those, 45-50 SG551-2SP carbines with 16.2" barrels made it in before the 1989 ban. A tiny number of the 550-1 Sniper rifle variant was imported too. Finally, an unknown number of semi-automatic PE90s slipt in, many without import marks. These rifles were the same as the SG550-1SP, except they had both the grenade tention ring and bayonet lug. I've seen estimates for these rifles from 10 to 50 here in the USA. I tend to feel it is towards the higher end, since they seem to come up for sale rather frequently. Prices for these range from $10,000 to $15,000, depending on condition and accessories. Some like them for their authenticity, while others question the legality of how they were brought into the USA and if they are truely preban? Also, many seem to show more wear and tear than standard SG550-2s, which is a bit unusual.
http://i.imgur.com/6bdrEFI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/gsIZOI2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Oj6t5DG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3w1v9sh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/a1tnxcD.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YxAlu5D.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Yv0mae5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/iF1ezQS.jpg
(My preban SG550-1SP with classic Swiss military sling)
This rifle has an interesting history, and there are reasons why I obtained it so 'aforedably.' Sometime in its past, someone decided it would be a great idea to drill and tap the receiver for a scope base. Normally, this is the deathnail for any military type firearm, but with so few SG550-1SPs in the USA it was worth restoring. In addition to that, the same idiot drilled 2 holes in the buttstock to attach a cheak riser, which he 'made' from an HK93 forearm. Long story short, someone back-when nearly destroyed a beautiful and rare rifle. I found this rifle online but was in the middle of buying a house, so I couldn't afored it at the time. I convinced a friend and gunsmith to buy it instead. He did and repaired the receiver and stock....the receiver I challenge anyone to figure out it was ever molested! As for the stock, well there is only so much you can do with polymers. Still, I now have an authentic SG550-1SP for nearly half of what they usually go for. Recently, he decided he didn't need it and i was able to snap it up. Plus, since hey its not mint in the box or anything, no harm in taking it to the range!
http://i.imgur.com/eqY33eJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9SP1hBC.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QYooGuY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/R7kbomp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FaMNk0K.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OGRsu7X.jpg
(A police surplus Swiss SG551-2SP SWAT carbine, with 2" muzzle extension and modern sling)
I purchased this Swiss SG551-2SP SWAT two years ago, when a batch of police surplus carbines were available from Michael's Machines (i.e. MM or Mike Otte). It cost about half of what a preban would have, and it has an original length 14.3" barrel, with internal threading for a blank device. Best of all it is exempt from 922(r), so it is all Swiss. Luckily, I had a buyer for a couple of high end firearms I was hoping to move at the time, so I was able to swing it....just. I am glad I did though. Only about 110 were sold, and since its already surplus, I don't feel bad about firing it. I see no reason to have such a fine rifle and not be able to shoot and enjoy it. It really completes my Swiss military issue firearms collection.
http://i.imgur.com/hR0Db5Q.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/roVHRBA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PAGuHnU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/zLmy3r4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/T301VYl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SIHTKzp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OSPB140.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3bOZYXy.jpg
(My first & former SG553P Pistol imported by M+M)
This is one of the 200 SG553Ps imported by M+M (Colorado Gun Sales), with 100 of the diopter version and 100 of the railed type. The very first guns had a non-threaded and heavy 10" barrel, but this was soon changed to a standard weight 8.9" one with 1/2x28" threading. It was reported that these early pistols had a 1 in 10 twist rate, but more recently evidence has come to light which suggests all were actually 1 in 7. Later, SIG Arms (SIG USA) fucked everything up for everyone by importing more, with a horrible marking and a $1k lower price point. I had this one for several months. It was very well made and shot nicely, but in the end I decided to pass it along. Honestly, I am glad I did after what SIG Arms pulled. The SG553P is the same as the military SG553-2, except for being in semi-auto only and having no buttstock. Also, it has the current machined lower and all black finish.
http://i.imgur.com/DzelqRq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4Kd2AhK.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/imsJMoz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dsgjzyL.jpg
(My second & current SG553P imported by SIG Sauer)
When SIG took over the importation of the 553P line from M+M, it had to double mark the first batch of pistols for some reason. Maybe the original M+M markings had already been ingraved and SIG had no choice but to add a second set to make the ATF happy? Either way, most people barely tolerate a single import marking and two was far too many for some. However, later SIG imported 553Ps like mine here have only a single marking. They are the same as the earlier M+M guns, except for the flash hider. The M+M had a Swiss style birdcage, where as the SIG has a 552/3 style 3 prong. Honestly, I like the 3 prong as it is more distinctive. Fit and finish is still excellent, and for under $3,000, I just couldn't say no to getting another one to complete my collection. Oh and they are a shit load of fun to shoot too.
USA Made Copies:
Back in 2004-2005, rumours abounded of SIG opening an American production facility for the SG55x series of rifles. To put it bluntly, they didn't just let us down, they fucked us over. Originally, we were given the SIG556ER in 2007, which had a heavy plastic 'fish gill' handguard, an aluminium rail bolted on top of the receiver, took standard AR15 mags, and had a fixed M4 telescoping buttstock. The very first ones were built with some Swiss parts; but soon, USA subcontractors were used instead. Then the SIG556 Commando came out with a side folding Magpul stock, which was better but still very Americanized. Later still, the SIG556 Classic was released, which still took AR15 mags but at least had a Swiss style folding buttstock (which was not Swiss made). The P556 pistol was orignally supposed to have a 8.9" barrel and use the same length of gas system as the SG553. However, when SIG USA ran into reliability problems, it lengthened everything by about an inch; making the barrel 10" and meaning no 553 gas system parts would be compatable. Finally, the SIG551-A1 was released, which was in SAN (Swiss) grey, took Swiss magazines, and had an authentic Swiss side folding buttstock. Don't worry though, having a good thing with the -A1, SIG Arms then switched the original Swiss stock with a foreign made copy without telling anyone. SIG made a factory SBR by mating the 551-A1's lower with a P556 upper too. In the end, they canceled the SIG556 and SIG551-A1 lines altogether and replaced them with the new SIG556XI line. For the XI line's "improvements" just use Sir. Google.
The SIG556 and SIG551-A1 were parts compatable copies of the original SG551, however the SIG556XI is its own bastardized variant.
Originally, I bought a SIG556 Classic, and while it was a good enough rifle, it just wasn't Swiss enough. When the SIG551-A1 came out, i was quite happy with it, and I set about modifying mine to be more like an original SG551LB. I installed a bayonet lug, Swiss style flash hider, original Swiss handguards, and Swiss diopter sights. It was quite a good clone, but I found I had nearly $2,500 in it after everything. Then I found Mike Otte and his SG551-2SP police trade-ins. I was able to sell my SIG551-A1 for $3,000 and sold 2 other guns to free up the additional $2,200 that I needed for the trade-in rifle.
I was happy to have an all original and Swiss firearm, but still deep in my heart wanted an STGW.90 type rifle. I considered getting another SIG551-A1 and rebarreling it, but by 2013-2014, original PE90 parts were getting very expensive. It would have taken a whole new barrel, new gas system, new handguards, and new diopter sights. I could have also put on an original Swiss lower too. The project would have cost me over $5,000 if i were to do it right, so I just shelved the whole idea. I checked Gunbroker from time to time, looking for a preban SG550, but prices were always well out of reach for me. I even considered selling my SG551 too but hated the idea of letting go of a legit milspec carbine.
So with building one out and prebans looking out of range for my budget, I was getting used to the fact that I would never own a SG550 type rifle. Then the right one for me came along. I hate that bubba got ahold of it back-when; but on the otherhand, his modifications were what allowed it to fall into my price range. Originally, the seller (an FFL out in Nevada), listed it on Gunbroker at $7,500.00. It had no takers, because most collectors able to afored it at that price, could afored to spend a bit more and get an unmodified example. So the dealer dropped it to $7,000 and then $6,000; and still no takers. After chatting with him a couple times and learning the extent of bubba's modifications, i offered him $4,000. I wasn't trying to screw him, but I was afraid both the receiver and stock might be write-offs, so i was offering him about what a SG550-1 parts kit might go for. After some time, he came back with a price of $5,000 and finally one of $4,500. I turned it over to my friend and gunsmith, who after a bit of debate and worry, took the guy up on his offer.
The seller obviously did not know anything about SG55x rifles, nor apparently about safe packing techniques. When my friend received the box, the mag was just kicking around loose in there and the charging handle was sticking out of the side. In fact, the handle was destroyed, as during shipping all of the rubber had been ground off it.
So my friend had 3 things to do. He had to weld up the holes in the top of the receiver, fill in the 2 holes on the top of the buttstock, and find a new charging handle. Best guess as to why someone did something like this to a preban SG550? Probably some young kid inherited it from an old relative or friend. Then having little money (and no brains), he modified it into a 'sniper' rifle in his garage, using whatever parts he had laying around. My friend is a great welder and managed to basically make the holes in the receiver disappear. He even found the right shade of Swiss grey to make the repaired areas match the rest of the metal. Next, he had to fill in the holes in the stock, and again he got lucky and found the right colour to dye the plastic filler with. Finally, he bought a NOS charging handle from a friend of his in...Switzerland or Britan? I can't recall which one right now.
At anyrate, when he was done, the rifle looked infinitely better and was nearly perfect. Also good news in that it appears bubba shot it very little. It looks to have had only a couple mags put through it honestly, so the bore and gas system are very clean. There are few marks behind the ejection port too from brass cases.
Buying this rifle was a gamble since we really didn't know the extent to which it had been abused; in the end though, it worked out just fine.
As to why i decided to get another SG553P, well, prices have fallen and I always did think it was a nifty firearm. When I had just it and the 551, it seemed a bit silly to have both the carbine forms but not the original rifle. However, once I got the 550 rifle I'd always wanted, i started to feel it would be great to have all of the major variants. If down the road I was forced to part with one to free up some money, I could still have the long rifle and shorty SMG carbine as opposite ends of the range. That's just kind of how my mind works. I like compare and contrast like that. That said, often I do feel the 551 carbine in the middle is just right. It is much shorter and lighter than the 550, yet still has more range and utility than the tiny 553.
SG55x Tech Specs:
Weight:
SG 550: 4.1 kg (9.04 lb)
SG 551: 3.40 kg (7.5 lb)
SG 552: 3.2 kg (7.1 lb)
SG 553: 3.2 kg (7.1 lb)
SG 550 Sniper: 7.02 kg (15.5 lb)
Overall Length:
SG 550 (stock extended): 998 mm (39.3 in)
SG 550 (stock folded): 772 mm (30.4 in)
SG 551 (stock extended): 833 mm (32.8 in)
SG 551 (stock folded): 607 mm (23.9 in)
SG 552 (stock extended): 730 mm (28.7 in)
SG 552 (stock folded): 504 mm (19.8 in)
SG 553 (stock extended): 730 mm (28.7 in)
SG 553 (stock folded): 501 mm (19.7 in)
SG 550 Sniper (stock extended): 1,130 mm (44.5 in)
SG 550 Sniper (stock folded): 905 mm (35.6 in)
Barrel Length:
SG 550: 528 mm (20.8 in)
SG 551: 363 mm (14.3 in)
SG 552: 226 mm (8.9 in)
SG 553: 227 mm (8.9 in)
SG 550 Sniper: 650 mm (25.6 in)
>SG550 - fullsized rifle, 20.8" barrel,
>>550-1 Sniper - DMR version
>>PE90 - semi only Swiss civilian version
>>550-2SP - export civilian version
>SG551 - carbine length, 14.3" barrel
>>551-1/2 LB - extended 17.9" barrel for grenades & bayonet
>>551-1/2P - semi only Swiss police model
>>551-2SP - semi only export civilian model, either 14.3" or 16.1" barrel
>>551-2SP SWAT - semi only export police model, with moisture resistant internal finish
>SG552 - subcompact model, 8.9" barrel, redesigned recoil system
>>552-1/2 LB - extended 13.6" barrel for grenades & bayonet
>>552-1/2SP - semi only police version
>SG553 - subcompact model, 8.9" barrel
>>553-1/2 LB - extended 13.6" barrel for grenades & bayonet
>>553R - 7.62x39mm 'Russian' version, accepts standard AK47/AKM magazines
>>553AL - lightweight variant with a machined aluminium lower
>>553-1/2SP - semi only police version
>>553P - semi only pistol version intended for the American market
>SIG556 - American civilian copy based on SG551-2
>>556ER - original version, 16" threaded barrel, 'fishgill' handguards,fixed collapsible buttstock, rail only, aluminium lower that takes AR15 magazines
>>556 Commando - special version of 556ER in green with Magpul CTR stock
>>556 Classic - Swiss style handguards and folding buttstock, SG540 style hooded front sight, offered with reddot or clamp-on diopter rear sight
>>556 SWAT - Same as Classic but with aluminium quadrail handguards
>>P556 - pistol version with 10" barrel and shortened gas system
>>P556 SWAT - Same as P556 but with Quadrail handguards
>>556 Patrol - Same as Classic but with the P556 length gas system and standard 16" barrel; offered as SWAT or Standard
>>551-A1 - special version of Classic which took Swiss magazines, came with an authentic Swiss buttstock, had a unique flash hider, and was coloured Swiss grey
>>556R - 7.62x39mm 'Russian' chambered variant of the Classic
>>556 DMR - accurized version of the 556ER with 20.8" heavy barrel, no flash hider, match trigger, 556ER handguards, and Magpul PRS buttstock.
>>522 - .22 LR styled 556 Classic, which is blowback and takes AR15-22 type magazines
>>551-A1 SBR - a factory NFA rifle combining a P556 upper and 551-A1 lower
Swiss military designations:
SG550-1 = STGW.90
SG551-1 = STGW.90K
SG552-1 LB = STGW.04
SG553-1 LB = STGW.04/07
Well there you have my revised and expanded SG55x Thread. I've dug around alot and learned as much as I could without being able to actually look at posted pictures. I am sure I got some things wrong, but I hope the broad strokes are right. I really love these guns and the whole SIG/SAN series. If you asked me why, I would have a difficult time explaining. Objectively I know the SG55x has faults and flaws, but at the same time I really enjoy shooting it and it just has a mystique for me.
by Mishaco
http://i.imgur.com/mYQZ1rU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fe7XTuv.jpg
(My Swiss Family: SG550-1SP on top, SG551-2SP SWAT in the middle, & SG553-2P on bottom)
Development History:
http://i.imgur.com/FeUUh87.jpg
(Standard Swiss military issue STGW.90 assault rifle)
The PE90 was Switzerland's attempt to adopt a modern small caliber assault rifle, which was both lighter and less expensive than the P57. I am not sure exactly how well they succeded there, but the result definitely was one of the finest assault rifles ever devised.
In 1978, the Swiss military decided to look into the possibility of adopting a small caliber, select-fire rifle to replace the full power and fullsized P57 battle rifle. The new design had to be accurate out to at least 300 meters, less expensive to manufacture, lighter, more compact, and more modular than the older design. Two versions were called for; a standard full length rifle for the infantry, and a so-called 'Headquaters' carbine for use in special situations.
http://i.imgur.com/gquPdah.jpg
(SIG SG540 Prototype rifle)
Schweizerische Industrie-Gesellschaft Neuhausen (SIG) had already been working on a .223/5.56mm caliber assault rifle for some time by this point. In the 1960s, it released the SG530-1 prototype, which had both a gas piston and roller delayed bolt. Next, the SG540 came out. It kept the gas piston and switched to an AK47 style rotating bolt with 2 large locking lugs. It featured an adjustable gas system, HK style drum diopter sights, fixed polymer buttstock, and lightweight bipod. Later, a version would be offered with a folding stock made from tubular steel. To allow it to be both easier and cheaper to mass produce, it was built with more stamped metal parts and even some made from investment castings. The SG540 actually went into limited production, with the French firm of Manurhin purchasing a manufacturing license. The French military bought several thousand of these domestically produced SG540s, using them as stop-gap rifles until the FAMAS bullpup was fully operational. Additionally, Beretta used it as the basis for its own AR70 assault rifle, which was eventually adopted in a modified form by the Italian military as the AR70/90.
http://i.imgur.com/1OamZug.jpg
(SIG SG543 trials carbine)
In 1979, SIG submitted its latest assault rifle model for military trials. Actually, it submitted two versions. The SG541 had a rifle length barrel and gas system, and the SG543 was a compact carbine. The SIG design competed against the C42 submitted by Waffenfabrik Bern. It officially was selected for further development in 1983. At the same time, the 5.6mm GP90 cartridge was chosen as Switzerland's new service round. GP90 is very similar to 5.56mm NATO but just different enough not to be the same. It has a bullet weight of 63g, rather than the original American 55g or later NATO 62g.
Originally, both the new rifle and cartridge were to go into service immediately; however, manufacturing complications and budget cuts drastically extended the process. In 1984, the SG541 received several design improvements and was redesignated as the SG550. The gas system was improved and made more corrosion resistant and a new pattern of skeletonized polymer stock was introduced. Also, a four way fire mode selector was made standard: safe, single, 3 rd burst, and full-auto. These changes were carried over to the SG543 too, and it became the SG551. Finally in 1986, the Swiss military took delivery of the first batch of the new rifles, which were officially designated as Sturmgewehr Model of 1990. It would take over a decade for the entire military to be so re-equipped though.
The PE90 features typical Swiss quality and attention to detail. While definitely less time consuming and resource intensive to build than SiG's previous P57, it is still one of the most expensive 5.56mm caliber military rifles in the world. Tuned for optimal performance in the often fridgid Swiss Alps, it is highly reliable and durable. The SG550 has a long-stroke gas piston system and AK47 style rotating bolt. Despite this, it is quite accurate, especially at close to medium ranges. The standard rifle has a 20.8" long barrel, with intrigal flash hider and grenade ring. The inside of the flash hider is threaded to accept a blank firing device also. The gas system is adjustable with two settings, and under the gas block there is a P57 style bayonet lug. The light aluminium alloy bipod is attached to the long polymer handguard, and fits into grooves on its underside when not in use. The upper and lower receivers are made from stamped and welded steel, and the barrel screws into a machined front trunion. The charging handle is very similar to the AK47's but is rubber coated and upswept. It does reciprocate with the bolt, and rides inside a channel protected by a rubber dustcover. The mag release is virtually the same as the one on the P57, as are the takedown pins. The fire mode selector is ambidextrous, and much better placed than on the P57. There is an automatic last-round bolt hold open device, and external release lever. The trigger is quite light and smooth, and it is adjustable too. The trigger guard is made of stamped steel and can be folded up to either side, to reach the trigger if wearing thick gloves. The pistol grip is made of ribbed polymer and has a small storage compartment inside. The buttstock has an inner frame made of steel, with an outer shell of polymer and a ridged rubber buttplate. It easily folds to the right side and locks into a tab on the side of the handguard. Most Swiss military PE90s have dark green furniture, but many of the other variants come in black.
The P90 has HK style diopter sights, with a windage adjustable hooded front blade; and an elevation and windage adjustable rear drum with 3 apertures and a notch. Night sights are standard on all models, with a fold up front blade and two rear points as part of the drum's notch setting. Unlike the P57's sights, the ones on the PE90 do not fold, however they have a much lower profile. This also means they are much closer to the bore's axis. The firearm feeds from translucent polymer magazines, which have tabs on the side to lock multiple units together. The standard mag holds 20 rounds, and an extended 30 round version is available for special situations.
The PE90 disassembles easily and without the need for tools. Just open the upper and lower receivers by removing the rear takedown pin, then press down on the release lever and pull out the charging handle. The bolt group will fall out the back of the upper receiver. Rotate the bolt to separate it from the carrier. To remove the gas system, press the spring loaded detent and rotate the gas valve until it pulls out. Then the gas piston and recoil spring assembly falls out the front of the gas tube. If you want to remove the tube itself for a cleaning, just press the detent again and rotate the end of the tube until it too pulls free of the gas block. If you want to completely separate the upper and lower receivers, just remove the front takedown pin and there you go. All in pieces. At this point the handguards will easily come off too, as they are held on by the lower receiver. The buttstock is attached with a single long pivit pin, which can be knocked out with a punch and light hammer, but this isn't neccessary for cleaning.
http://i.imgur.com/055grDx.jpg
(SG55x Family Photo)
The standard rifle goes by several names and designations: STGW.90, PE90, P90, SG550, Fusil d'assaut 90, or more simply FASS90. Originally designed and manufactured by SIG, it has been built and sold under the Swiss Arms Neuhausen (SAN) brand name since 2000, when SiG sold its firearms division to the Lu¨ke & Ortmeier Group. Many versions and variants in the SG55x family exist today.
The SG550-1 is the STGW.90 designed for the 5.6mm 63g GP90 cartridge with a 1 in 10 twist rate. The SG550-2 on the otherhand is meant to fire the standard 62g 5.56mm NATO round and has a 1 in 7 twist rate. There is a DMR variant of the rifle called the 550-1 Sniper, with scope, 25.8" accurized barrel, fully adjustable trigger, adjustable stock, cheak rest, and more ergonomic and adjustable pistol grip; which are all standard features from the factory.
The carbine version is designated as the SG551 and has a 14.3" barrel, shortened gas system and handguards, no bayonet lug, and can not fire rifle grenades. The military designation for this version seems to be STGW.90k. It is in limited use with a few Swiss units such as the Infantry Grenadiers and the Para Recon Company. It too is made in -1 and -2 variants. The 'SWAT' carbine variant is designed for use in humid or wet environments, with a more corrosion resistant finish to many of its internal parts. The SG551 LB has an extended 17.9" barrel, which allows it to fire rifle grenades and mount a bayonet.
The SG552 is out of production now, but was an even shorter submachinegun sized version. It has sometimes been referred to as the SiG Commando by some users and in some promo material. It had a 8.9" barrel, fixed post style charging handle, removable flash hider, and redesigned recoil system with the spring in the back as in an AK47. Its handguards were made by manually cutting down the standard set used on the SG550, and then drilling 5 vent holes in each side to provide for additional cooling. Today, it has been replaced by the SG553, which has the same short barrel with muzzle threading, gas tube, and handguards; but uses a shortened SG550 recoil system and standard removable charging handle. Also it has a thinner gas piston than the standard 550/551, which is fluted to save on weight. Several different types of flash hider have been offered for this variant, including the original 4 prong, an updated 3 prong, and a Rotex suppressor compatable device. Both SMG sized firearms have been offered in a LB version, with a longer 13.6" barrel. The SG553 seems to only be offered in an all black colour scheme. The Swiss military adopted a limited number of the SG552-1 LB as the STGW.04, and later the SG553-1 LB as the STGW.04/07. They have been used by specialized type units such as paratroopers.
Modern SG55x versions are offered either with fixed diopter sights or with a weaver rail and folding backup iron sights. They can be had with the original pattern stamped steel lower, or one manufactured from machined aluminium. A 'NATO' version is offered, which feeds from all standard AR15/M16 type magazines. Quadrail handguards are an option, as is a stock which both folds and has an adjustable length of pull. A variant of the subcompact known as the SG553R is even available chambered for the 7.62x39mm (M43) Russian cartridge. Finally, most models are offered as a semi-auto only, with the 'SP' suffix added to the designation. For example, the SG550-2SP was the most popular civilian legal variant imported into the USA during the 1980s. A special carbine variant with an extended 16.1" barrel was very briefly exported to the USA in the late 1980s, designated as the SG551-2SP. Other SG551-2SPs though, such as those sold in Europe and to American law enforcement, had standard 14.3" carbine barrels.
The SG550-1 is still the standard issue rifle of the Swiss military today. It also uses many SG551-1 carbines and a few SG552/3-1 LB subcompacts when the need arrises. Law enforcement uses the series too, especially the SG551 carbine and the standard short barreled SG552 SMG. Adding up all versions and variants, it is estimated that over 600,000 SG55x firearms have been built in Switzerland to date, with production still on going. 450,000 STGW.90 assault rifles were delivered to the Swiss military, while 35,000 civilian SG550 rifles have been sold within and outside of Switzerland.
The pattern has undergone very few changes since its introduction in 1986. Nevertheless, a few design tweeks have been introduced such as a slightly larger magazine well. Also, the furniture was redesigned in the early 1990s. The buttstock's mold lines became less pronounced, the underside was reshaped, the sling loop was moved to the centerline, and the buttplate lost much of its concave curviture. Finally, the vent holes in the handguard were reshaped. I've also heard tell that the shade of OD Green used was slightly changed.
The STGW.90 has proven itself a fine standard issue firearm in the Swiss military. It is highly reliable and durable, and plenty accurate for its class. It is easy to clean and maintain. This is a heavy rifle to be firing a small diameter bullet, but the flip side is that it has low felt recoil and is very controllable in full-auto. The barrel makes it a bit long by modern standards, but at least it has an excellent folding stock. Some dislike its ergonomics, mostly the placement of its safety selector and rock & lock magazines. The mags themselves are top notch though. They are very lightweight, durable, and easy to load by hand. They have survived many torture tests, including being frozen and dropped from a height while fully loaded. The one part of the rifle that does seem substandard is the light bipod, which is frankly rather useless and likes to fold on its own. One also should not forget that this firearm hasn't really been put through intensive, real world combat, as has the AK47, FN FAL, M16, HK G3, Steyr AUG, or many others. Still, the STGW.90 is a good fit for Switzerland.
Semi-Auto SG55x's in the USA:
Preban Swiss made SG550s bring at least $8,000 in the USA today, with most going for closer to $10,000. As for preban SG551s? since so few were brought in, they go for even more, say approximately $12,000-$15,000. This is why the American SIG556 and SIG551-A1 clones look so damn attractive to most people in the market for something like an STGW.90. Afterall, they use the same internal parts, even if they are US, rather than Swiss made. The differences are mostly external: furniture, barrel profile, sights, etc.
Back in the 1980s, between 450 and 500 SG550 rifles came into the country. Most were the SG550-2SP with its 1in7 twist rate, though a few SG550-1SPs did come over with the original 1in10 twist. In addition to those, 45-50 SG551-2SP carbines with 16.2" barrels made it in before the 1989 ban. A tiny number of the 550-1 Sniper rifle variant was imported too. Finally, an unknown number of semi-automatic PE90s slipt in, many without import marks. These rifles were the same as the SG550-1SP, except they had both the grenade tention ring and bayonet lug. I've seen estimates for these rifles from 10 to 50 here in the USA. I tend to feel it is towards the higher end, since they seem to come up for sale rather frequently. Prices for these range from $10,000 to $15,000, depending on condition and accessories. Some like them for their authenticity, while others question the legality of how they were brought into the USA and if they are truely preban? Also, many seem to show more wear and tear than standard SG550-2s, which is a bit unusual.
http://i.imgur.com/6bdrEFI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/gsIZOI2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Oj6t5DG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3w1v9sh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/a1tnxcD.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YxAlu5D.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Yv0mae5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/iF1ezQS.jpg
(My preban SG550-1SP with classic Swiss military sling)
This rifle has an interesting history, and there are reasons why I obtained it so 'aforedably.' Sometime in its past, someone decided it would be a great idea to drill and tap the receiver for a scope base. Normally, this is the deathnail for any military type firearm, but with so few SG550-1SPs in the USA it was worth restoring. In addition to that, the same idiot drilled 2 holes in the buttstock to attach a cheak riser, which he 'made' from an HK93 forearm. Long story short, someone back-when nearly destroyed a beautiful and rare rifle. I found this rifle online but was in the middle of buying a house, so I couldn't afored it at the time. I convinced a friend and gunsmith to buy it instead. He did and repaired the receiver and stock....the receiver I challenge anyone to figure out it was ever molested! As for the stock, well there is only so much you can do with polymers. Still, I now have an authentic SG550-1SP for nearly half of what they usually go for. Recently, he decided he didn't need it and i was able to snap it up. Plus, since hey its not mint in the box or anything, no harm in taking it to the range!
http://i.imgur.com/eqY33eJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9SP1hBC.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QYooGuY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/R7kbomp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FaMNk0K.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OGRsu7X.jpg
(A police surplus Swiss SG551-2SP SWAT carbine, with 2" muzzle extension and modern sling)
I purchased this Swiss SG551-2SP SWAT two years ago, when a batch of police surplus carbines were available from Michael's Machines (i.e. MM or Mike Otte). It cost about half of what a preban would have, and it has an original length 14.3" barrel, with internal threading for a blank device. Best of all it is exempt from 922(r), so it is all Swiss. Luckily, I had a buyer for a couple of high end firearms I was hoping to move at the time, so I was able to swing it....just. I am glad I did though. Only about 110 were sold, and since its already surplus, I don't feel bad about firing it. I see no reason to have such a fine rifle and not be able to shoot and enjoy it. It really completes my Swiss military issue firearms collection.
http://i.imgur.com/hR0Db5Q.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/roVHRBA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PAGuHnU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/zLmy3r4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/T301VYl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SIHTKzp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OSPB140.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3bOZYXy.jpg
(My first & former SG553P Pistol imported by M+M)
This is one of the 200 SG553Ps imported by M+M (Colorado Gun Sales), with 100 of the diopter version and 100 of the railed type. The very first guns had a non-threaded and heavy 10" barrel, but this was soon changed to a standard weight 8.9" one with 1/2x28" threading. It was reported that these early pistols had a 1 in 10 twist rate, but more recently evidence has come to light which suggests all were actually 1 in 7. Later, SIG Arms (SIG USA) fucked everything up for everyone by importing more, with a horrible marking and a $1k lower price point. I had this one for several months. It was very well made and shot nicely, but in the end I decided to pass it along. Honestly, I am glad I did after what SIG Arms pulled. The SG553P is the same as the military SG553-2, except for being in semi-auto only and having no buttstock. Also, it has the current machined lower and all black finish.
http://i.imgur.com/DzelqRq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4Kd2AhK.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/imsJMoz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dsgjzyL.jpg
(My second & current SG553P imported by SIG Sauer)
When SIG took over the importation of the 553P line from M+M, it had to double mark the first batch of pistols for some reason. Maybe the original M+M markings had already been ingraved and SIG had no choice but to add a second set to make the ATF happy? Either way, most people barely tolerate a single import marking and two was far too many for some. However, later SIG imported 553Ps like mine here have only a single marking. They are the same as the earlier M+M guns, except for the flash hider. The M+M had a Swiss style birdcage, where as the SIG has a 552/3 style 3 prong. Honestly, I like the 3 prong as it is more distinctive. Fit and finish is still excellent, and for under $3,000, I just couldn't say no to getting another one to complete my collection. Oh and they are a shit load of fun to shoot too.
USA Made Copies:
Back in 2004-2005, rumours abounded of SIG opening an American production facility for the SG55x series of rifles. To put it bluntly, they didn't just let us down, they fucked us over. Originally, we were given the SIG556ER in 2007, which had a heavy plastic 'fish gill' handguard, an aluminium rail bolted on top of the receiver, took standard AR15 mags, and had a fixed M4 telescoping buttstock. The very first ones were built with some Swiss parts; but soon, USA subcontractors were used instead. Then the SIG556 Commando came out with a side folding Magpul stock, which was better but still very Americanized. Later still, the SIG556 Classic was released, which still took AR15 mags but at least had a Swiss style folding buttstock (which was not Swiss made). The P556 pistol was orignally supposed to have a 8.9" barrel and use the same length of gas system as the SG553. However, when SIG USA ran into reliability problems, it lengthened everything by about an inch; making the barrel 10" and meaning no 553 gas system parts would be compatable. Finally, the SIG551-A1 was released, which was in SAN (Swiss) grey, took Swiss magazines, and had an authentic Swiss side folding buttstock. Don't worry though, having a good thing with the -A1, SIG Arms then switched the original Swiss stock with a foreign made copy without telling anyone. SIG made a factory SBR by mating the 551-A1's lower with a P556 upper too. In the end, they canceled the SIG556 and SIG551-A1 lines altogether and replaced them with the new SIG556XI line. For the XI line's "improvements" just use Sir. Google.
The SIG556 and SIG551-A1 were parts compatable copies of the original SG551, however the SIG556XI is its own bastardized variant.
Originally, I bought a SIG556 Classic, and while it was a good enough rifle, it just wasn't Swiss enough. When the SIG551-A1 came out, i was quite happy with it, and I set about modifying mine to be more like an original SG551LB. I installed a bayonet lug, Swiss style flash hider, original Swiss handguards, and Swiss diopter sights. It was quite a good clone, but I found I had nearly $2,500 in it after everything. Then I found Mike Otte and his SG551-2SP police trade-ins. I was able to sell my SIG551-A1 for $3,000 and sold 2 other guns to free up the additional $2,200 that I needed for the trade-in rifle.
I was happy to have an all original and Swiss firearm, but still deep in my heart wanted an STGW.90 type rifle. I considered getting another SIG551-A1 and rebarreling it, but by 2013-2014, original PE90 parts were getting very expensive. It would have taken a whole new barrel, new gas system, new handguards, and new diopter sights. I could have also put on an original Swiss lower too. The project would have cost me over $5,000 if i were to do it right, so I just shelved the whole idea. I checked Gunbroker from time to time, looking for a preban SG550, but prices were always well out of reach for me. I even considered selling my SG551 too but hated the idea of letting go of a legit milspec carbine.
So with building one out and prebans looking out of range for my budget, I was getting used to the fact that I would never own a SG550 type rifle. Then the right one for me came along. I hate that bubba got ahold of it back-when; but on the otherhand, his modifications were what allowed it to fall into my price range. Originally, the seller (an FFL out in Nevada), listed it on Gunbroker at $7,500.00. It had no takers, because most collectors able to afored it at that price, could afored to spend a bit more and get an unmodified example. So the dealer dropped it to $7,000 and then $6,000; and still no takers. After chatting with him a couple times and learning the extent of bubba's modifications, i offered him $4,000. I wasn't trying to screw him, but I was afraid both the receiver and stock might be write-offs, so i was offering him about what a SG550-1 parts kit might go for. After some time, he came back with a price of $5,000 and finally one of $4,500. I turned it over to my friend and gunsmith, who after a bit of debate and worry, took the guy up on his offer.
The seller obviously did not know anything about SG55x rifles, nor apparently about safe packing techniques. When my friend received the box, the mag was just kicking around loose in there and the charging handle was sticking out of the side. In fact, the handle was destroyed, as during shipping all of the rubber had been ground off it.
So my friend had 3 things to do. He had to weld up the holes in the top of the receiver, fill in the 2 holes on the top of the buttstock, and find a new charging handle. Best guess as to why someone did something like this to a preban SG550? Probably some young kid inherited it from an old relative or friend. Then having little money (and no brains), he modified it into a 'sniper' rifle in his garage, using whatever parts he had laying around. My friend is a great welder and managed to basically make the holes in the receiver disappear. He even found the right shade of Swiss grey to make the repaired areas match the rest of the metal. Next, he had to fill in the holes in the stock, and again he got lucky and found the right colour to dye the plastic filler with. Finally, he bought a NOS charging handle from a friend of his in...Switzerland or Britan? I can't recall which one right now.
At anyrate, when he was done, the rifle looked infinitely better and was nearly perfect. Also good news in that it appears bubba shot it very little. It looks to have had only a couple mags put through it honestly, so the bore and gas system are very clean. There are few marks behind the ejection port too from brass cases.
Buying this rifle was a gamble since we really didn't know the extent to which it had been abused; in the end though, it worked out just fine.
As to why i decided to get another SG553P, well, prices have fallen and I always did think it was a nifty firearm. When I had just it and the 551, it seemed a bit silly to have both the carbine forms but not the original rifle. However, once I got the 550 rifle I'd always wanted, i started to feel it would be great to have all of the major variants. If down the road I was forced to part with one to free up some money, I could still have the long rifle and shorty SMG carbine as opposite ends of the range. That's just kind of how my mind works. I like compare and contrast like that. That said, often I do feel the 551 carbine in the middle is just right. It is much shorter and lighter than the 550, yet still has more range and utility than the tiny 553.
SG55x Tech Specs:
Weight:
SG 550: 4.1 kg (9.04 lb)
SG 551: 3.40 kg (7.5 lb)
SG 552: 3.2 kg (7.1 lb)
SG 553: 3.2 kg (7.1 lb)
SG 550 Sniper: 7.02 kg (15.5 lb)
Overall Length:
SG 550 (stock extended): 998 mm (39.3 in)
SG 550 (stock folded): 772 mm (30.4 in)
SG 551 (stock extended): 833 mm (32.8 in)
SG 551 (stock folded): 607 mm (23.9 in)
SG 552 (stock extended): 730 mm (28.7 in)
SG 552 (stock folded): 504 mm (19.8 in)
SG 553 (stock extended): 730 mm (28.7 in)
SG 553 (stock folded): 501 mm (19.7 in)
SG 550 Sniper (stock extended): 1,130 mm (44.5 in)
SG 550 Sniper (stock folded): 905 mm (35.6 in)
Barrel Length:
SG 550: 528 mm (20.8 in)
SG 551: 363 mm (14.3 in)
SG 552: 226 mm (8.9 in)
SG 553: 227 mm (8.9 in)
SG 550 Sniper: 650 mm (25.6 in)
>SG550 - fullsized rifle, 20.8" barrel,
>>550-1 Sniper - DMR version
>>PE90 - semi only Swiss civilian version
>>550-2SP - export civilian version
>SG551 - carbine length, 14.3" barrel
>>551-1/2 LB - extended 17.9" barrel for grenades & bayonet
>>551-1/2P - semi only Swiss police model
>>551-2SP - semi only export civilian model, either 14.3" or 16.1" barrel
>>551-2SP SWAT - semi only export police model, with moisture resistant internal finish
>SG552 - subcompact model, 8.9" barrel, redesigned recoil system
>>552-1/2 LB - extended 13.6" barrel for grenades & bayonet
>>552-1/2SP - semi only police version
>SG553 - subcompact model, 8.9" barrel
>>553-1/2 LB - extended 13.6" barrel for grenades & bayonet
>>553R - 7.62x39mm 'Russian' version, accepts standard AK47/AKM magazines
>>553AL - lightweight variant with a machined aluminium lower
>>553-1/2SP - semi only police version
>>553P - semi only pistol version intended for the American market
>SIG556 - American civilian copy based on SG551-2
>>556ER - original version, 16" threaded barrel, 'fishgill' handguards,fixed collapsible buttstock, rail only, aluminium lower that takes AR15 magazines
>>556 Commando - special version of 556ER in green with Magpul CTR stock
>>556 Classic - Swiss style handguards and folding buttstock, SG540 style hooded front sight, offered with reddot or clamp-on diopter rear sight
>>556 SWAT - Same as Classic but with aluminium quadrail handguards
>>P556 - pistol version with 10" barrel and shortened gas system
>>P556 SWAT - Same as P556 but with Quadrail handguards
>>556 Patrol - Same as Classic but with the P556 length gas system and standard 16" barrel; offered as SWAT or Standard
>>551-A1 - special version of Classic which took Swiss magazines, came with an authentic Swiss buttstock, had a unique flash hider, and was coloured Swiss grey
>>556R - 7.62x39mm 'Russian' chambered variant of the Classic
>>556 DMR - accurized version of the 556ER with 20.8" heavy barrel, no flash hider, match trigger, 556ER handguards, and Magpul PRS buttstock.
>>522 - .22 LR styled 556 Classic, which is blowback and takes AR15-22 type magazines
>>551-A1 SBR - a factory NFA rifle combining a P556 upper and 551-A1 lower
Swiss military designations:
SG550-1 = STGW.90
SG551-1 = STGW.90K
SG552-1 LB = STGW.04
SG553-1 LB = STGW.04/07
Well there you have my revised and expanded SG55x Thread. I've dug around alot and learned as much as I could without being able to actually look at posted pictures. I am sure I got some things wrong, but I hope the broad strokes are right. I really love these guns and the whole SIG/SAN series. If you asked me why, I would have a difficult time explaining. Objectively I know the SG55x has faults and flaws, but at the same time I really enjoy shooting it and it just has a mystique for me.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
SLR104FR versus the SGL31-95: A Detailed Comparison
by Mishaco
+ = Pros - = Cons SLR104FR: Maker - Arsenal (Bulgaria) Importer - Arsenal Inc. Semi-auto version of - Soviet era AKS-74 + All Bulgarian (except for 922(r)), authentic semi clone, + Side folding stock (polymer or triangle), + Bayonet & Accessory Lugs, + 24mm muzzle threads, + Scope rail, + High Cap magazine with dimpled magwell, + Trigger guard reinforcing plate, + Original Bulgarian paint over parkerized finish (few areas of touch-up paint added in USA), + Comes with accessories; sling, cleaning kit, oiler, high-cap mag, - Comes with either US made polymer or Russian made metal folding stock and not Bulgarian, - Black polymer handguards (not correct for an early model AKS), - Comes with US copy of AK74M brake and not older style, SGL31-95: Maker - Izhmash (Russia) Importer - Arsenal Inc. (FIME Group since 2013) Semi-auto version of - Russian Federation era AK-74M + All Bulgarian (except for 922(r)), authentic semi clone, + Side folding stock (polymer or triangle), + Bayonet & Accessory Lugs, + 24mm muzzle threads, + Scope rail, + High Cap magazine with dimpled magwell, + Black polymer handguards (correct for AK74M), + Black polymer folding stock made in Russia, - Lacks trigger guard reinforcing plate, - Weak painted on finish, +/- Comes with US copy of AK74M brake which is somewhat correctly made with long collar, but not exact and not chromelined, - No accessories included, Both rifles can have canted sights, but this issue is not nearly as common as many might believe. Both are factory built guns, imported as sporters, and converted to military configuration in the USA. SGL31 has new front sight and gas blocks installed here with lugs; SLR104 has the lugs milled out by hand from the original blocks. So the lugs on the SGL are more even and in-spec, but the pinning of the blocks is more uniform on the SLR. Neither have excessive magazine wiggle, and both are known for good/tight stock lockup. Both have 16.25" long, cold hammer forged and chromelined barrels, so potential accuracy is basically exactly the same. If these comments seem nit-picky, it is because they are. Both rifles are basically the same. Reliability, accuracy, durability; all the same. Fit and finish is generally equal too, but the edge does go to the SLR104 for its better metal finish (but not machining quality, that part is the same). When new and on the market, the SGL31-94 sold for just about the same as what the SLR104FR is going for today. What it boils down to is simple.... If you want a Russian AK to have something from the original factory, get the SGL31. If you just want a good rifle, either will do fine. Or If you want an Afghanistan era AK74 clone, get the SLR104FR, as it has all the earlier features such as ribbed dustcover and short thread collar. If you want a clone of the modern AK74M used today by the Russian military, get the SGL31 as it has current features such as a smooth dustcover, rivet on the side to assist bolt turning, and long thread collar. Out of the box, the SGL31-94 needs no modifications to generally look like a standard issue AK74M. Out of the box, the SLR104FR needs a set of wooden handguards (or plum polymer) and an earlier AK74 brake to generally be a good AKS74 clone. The SLR104FR has the TG reinforcing plate; the SGL31-94 does not. Much has been made over this little piece of stamped metal. Would it be nice if the SGL had it? sure. Is its receiver markidly weaker without it? no. None of the earlier AKS-74 rifles even had it. It wasn't introduced until the mid 1980s and not made standard until at least 1988. Tula didn't even ever use it when manufacturing its AKS-74U Krinks. Again, i do wish the SGL had it and i am glad the SLR does; but i am not worried about my SGL's receiver bending on me. When is the last time you ever heard of a stamped AK receiver bending like that? The plate was added to give a bit of extra strength in extreme situations, not because the receiver was bending from normal/everyday use and wear. If you were to drop the SGL31-94 on its pistol grip, with the stock folded and on to a hard surface from several feet, the receiver has a very very slight chance of bending (though more likely you'll just scuff up or crack your pistol grip). That said, if that is something you think you will be doing to your AK on a regular basis; well...my mother raised me to take care of my things, especially if they are expensive or valuable. The SGL is a pricy AK, so its probably not the best choice for a beat-around 'truck gun.' If that's what you want, get a Romanian WASR-10 or even a Serbian PAP. In conclusion, both the SLR104FR and SGL31-94 are awesome rifles and ones we're very lucky to have on the market here in the USA. For 99% of the shooting public, either would make the customer happy. The Arsenal SLR104FR is cheaper today, but the SGL31-94 does have a bit of an edge for being an original and true Izhmash product made in Russia. I am glad I have both and do not want to sell either. If i had to though, if I could only keep one? I'd keep the SGL31-94 hands down. In fact, if i could own only one rifle in 5.45x39mm at all, that would be the one I would pick. Sometimes, there is just no substitute for the original. But the SLR104FR is a great rifle and it exceeded my expectations. Arsenal nailed that one for sure. It just needs a set of wood handguards to bring out its potential. Also, its considerably easier to find and less expensive than the SGL today. In my book, an imported factory built rifle trumps one built from a parts kit on a US receiver 9 out of 10 times. Ironically, imports are usually cheaper too. Both rifles are among the best semi-auto AKs ever sold in the USA.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
The Beretta M9 Automatic Pistol:
The Beretta M9 Automatic Pistol:
I've done a thread on US service sidearms, and another on Italian military pistols; but never one wholly dedicated to one of my favorites; Beretta's 92FS/M9. I just picked up an M9A1 and finished kitting it out, so i thought I would show it and my other two off today. Also, recently I found a new home for my 2005 production M9, so soon it will be handed over to a new owner after nearly a decade of being mine. So this is a Goodbye dedication to it too, a pistol that has served me well and never once malfunctioned on me. I've always enjoyed shooting it and most everyone I've ever let do so too liked it. More than a couple ended up buying one later themselves.
I took parts out of my 2 old threads; updated, corrected, and edited them to form part of this one. Most here though has been newly shitted out for your cullenary enjoyment!
Much like the classic debate over Cats vs. Dogs, we have the one that goes something like the M1911A1 vs. the M9. So lets wade into the world of military politics, backroom dealing, and arm chair commando'ing.
Born In Italy:
(Original first pattern 92 from the 1970s)
The Beretta M92FS or M9, is the most famous Italian pistol today, at least in the U.S.A. There is much out there on this design, so i won't even attempt to reproduce it all here. It is extremely interesting to look at Beretta's first automatic, the Brevetto 1915, and compare it to the 92FS. The lineage is more than a bit apparent. Of course the Beretta 92FS is the American general issue sidearm today, for all military branches, under the designation of M9.
The model took inspiration from the 1951, but was a new design. Development lasted from 1972 until 1975, with a limited production run in 1976. In the late 1970s Pietro Beretta introduced the 92 as their next-generation military and police handgun. It used the same Walther pattern falling block locking system as the 1951, as well as the same open topped slide; but there the similarities ended. The 92 is a double action / single action automatic handgun, with lever type safety, 4.9" long barrel, lightweight alloy frame, and double stack magazine with a standard capacity of 15 rounds. extended magazines are available too. The design quickly was altered to meet the needs of its users.
(A 92S, the first major variant in the family)
The 92S variant introduced a combination decocker/safety leverrelocated to the slide, something requested by police agencies in both Europe and North America. Originally, it was located at the rear of the pistol's frame, similar to an FN High Power. The 92S-1 was an altered 92S, with the magazine release moved from the heel to behind the trigger guard, new ambidextrous safety, and vertical texturing applied to the grip straps. The mag catch could be reversed, to suit either handed shooter also. It was created for the first round of US military trials held in 1981.
(A 92SB, with updated controls and firing pin block)
The 92S-1 morphed into the 92SB which introduced an automatic firing pin block, making the pistol drop-safe. The 92G had a decocker only safety lever, and was made to fulfill the needs of the French military. The 92SBF version was built for the 1984 U.S. military XM9 trials. It had a chrome lined barrel, as well as a corrosion resistant finish to all of the metal parts. Beretta's name for this type of blued finish is Bruniton. It also had a reshaped trigger guard and 100% parts interchangeability. The designation of 92SBF was shortened to 92F in 1987, after the pistol had won the XM9 military trials.
The 92DS is a 92F, with a double action only trigger and bobbed hammer. The 92D is the same firearm, but lacking a manual safety. Finally, the 92FS is an updated 92F, with improved metalergy and safety features. It became the new M9 standard in 1989. Beretta has released many other versions of the 92 design, some in different calibers and/or with compact slides.
Trials and Tribulations in the USA:
(early commercial M9 'Special Edition,' with original style metal parts)
The famous or infamous Beretta M9 pistol. Some like it, some hate it, and most just like to hate it, but will actually admit its not bad if forced to do so. As with the M1911 nearly 75 years before, the Beretta underwent years of testing and product improvement before it was officially adopted into the United States Armed Forces as the Model 9 service pistol. It is still very much the current standard issue sidearm today, despite frequently reoccurring rumours of its demise.
The story of the M9 goes back to the formation of the Joint Services Small Arms Planning Commission in the late 1970s. This was the group that decided that America's military should transition away from the .45 ACP cartridge, and adopt the 9x19mm round in order to have a common handgun cartridge with other NATO member nations. Thus in 1979, trials for a new handgun were announced and it was to be chambered for a slightly modernized version of the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge, later designated as 9mm NATO. Ironically nearly the same cartridge had been tested by the US military in 1907, when it first looked at the Luger. This decision had the unintended side effect of making many marines' heads explode.
In 1980, Beretta's entry of the 92S-1 for the first round of trials conducted by the Air Force wonout over others submitted by such companies as Colt, Smith & Wesson, FNH, and H&K. Naturally, feeling that a bunch of flyboys couldn't know much about firearms, the Army contested the results of the trial. Keep in mind, it was also the Air Force that spearheaded the adoption of the M16. A rifle system so terrible , that it only has lasted over 50 years in military service. So in 1981, the Army announced a new round of testing to be administrated by themselves, with their own particular criteria and standards. Again Colt, H&K, SIG, and Beretta submitted pistols; and the Colt M1911A1 was used as a control. Beretta this time submitted its product improved 92SB and it failed the trials. Don't worry though, every other pistol did too, including the entry from SIG. Most who studied all of the standards and guidelines agree, that this round of testing was rigged to favour the M1911A1. Why would the Army do that? so it could keep the well loved old Colt and its .45 ACP cartridge as standard issue.
Though the USMC was perfectly happy with the outcome of this last round of pistol trials, the USAF was not. Neither was Congress, who ordered a third round in 1983, and just to tweek the Army's nose, the budget line for funding to purchase additional .45 ACP ammunition was cut. So basically, either choose something in 9mm or learn to fire rocks out of the M1911A1 when ammo stocks run out in a few years.
In 1984, the XM9 trials were held, with entries from Colt, S&W, FNH, H&K, SIG Sauer, Steyr, Walther, and Beretta. Again, Beretta submitted an improved design, the 92SBF. Half of the designs were disqualified early on for technical reasons, and the Walther and FN didn't pass initial durability testing. In the end, it was between the Beretta 92SBF and the SIG Sauer P226. The two ran neck and neck for a time, with the beancounters even getting involved to see which pistol package would be less expensive, even down to literally a few cents. Naturally, the Beretta 92SBF pistol won again, and naturally many still continued to protest. A rumour has even been widely circulated that Beretta was tipped off (illegally) to SIG's bid, so it could come in with a lower one. No hard evidence has ever come to light to support the accusation though. What is very clear is that Beretta really wanted that contract and would have done just about anything to win it. I think in the end, they simply wanted it more than SIG Sauer, who was already starting to show more interest in the law enforcement market.
Despite every objection and obsticle, in January of 1985, the 92SBF was officially adopted into US military service as the Model 9 automatic pistol. The Army, Air Force, and Navy all agreed to the new design; but the Marines resisted and the Coast Guard did not have the funds for large scale purchasing at the time. Nevertheless, adoption moved forward, with M9 manufacturing transitioning from Beretta's Italian factory, to their one in Accokeek, MD USA.
Shortly after adoption, two problems were noticed. First off, cracking was observed in the frame, behind the grip. A military study concluded this issue did not pose as a danger to the shooter and was only cosmetically displeasing. Nevertheless, Beretta was ordered to fix the problem if it wanted to retain its nice fat government contract. So by 1988, a retrofit was developed for the frame which successfully prevented further cracks from appearing. The other issue was more serious and had to do with M9 slides. In 1987, it seems some slides were breaking and flying back to hit the shooters. These run-away slides killed over 500 US serviceman and Beretta never even said 'sorry!'
No not really, only 3 slides actually separated from their frames in the field and no one was seriously harmed, much less killed. During testing, the military was able to reproduce the malfunction 11 times, most occurring after 10,000 rounds and some not until after over 30,000. Still this was not acceptable and the problem was eventually traced back to slides manufactured with too soft metal produced in Italy. Some also claimed (including Beretta themselves) the malfunctions were due in part to over pressure ammunition having been used, though this doesn't seem to have been the case. In 1988, the metalergy was improved and M9s began to be 100% made in the USA at Beretta's US factory. A hammer pin with an enlarged head was added to Beretta's improved 92FS design, which even if the slide did break; would not allow it to separate from the frame.
As a result of M9 problems, the XM10 trials were held in 1988 and again Beretta won, with the product improved 92FS, which became the new milspec for the M9. By 1990, the new pistol began to see widespread use throughout all branches of the military, replacing old 1911s and revolvers, of which many dated back to WWII and even WWI.
A Maturing Service Sidearm:
(M9 '20th Anniversary Edition,' with late style polymer parts)
Despite all of the negativity surrounding it and a bit of a rocky start, the M9 has actually prooven to be a decent service sidearm. It replaced a single action only design with a7 round magazine, whose safety could only be engaged once the hammer was back afterall. The M9 has a smooth trigger in double action, and an acceptably short and crisp single action pull. It is lighter than the old Colt, but retains a 5" barrel, and its sights are easier to acquire. It holds 15+1 rounds, and the safety is both ambidextrous and can be engaged with the hammer down. This means the slide can be fully racked, with the safety constantly engaged, which can be useful in certain situations. The M9 is reliable and durable, and not highly succeptible to harsh climates. It is easier to field strip and clean than the M1911 as well. So have I sold you yet? Of course the Beretta isn't perfect and has its downsides too, but its not the worst thing ever and the 9mm cartridge can be just as leathal as a .45. The top three complaints that soldiers express about this pistol are: its caliber, its weight, and its grip size. On the other hand, many like its large capacity and its low felt recoil. As to caliber, don't blame the Beretta. The US government wanted a 9mm, and no matter which handgun was going to be selected, it was going to be in that caliber. I am sure Beretta would have offered a version of the 92 in .45 ACP if the trials had called for such a thing.
In 1985, the US military placed an initial order for just under 316,000 pistols with Beretta USA. Then in 1989, a second large order for 50,000 was placed. Throughout the 1990s, Beretta delivered pistols to all branches of the military at regular intervals, with completion in 1998.
In 2002, the USAF ordered an additional 19,000 M9s as the war in Afghanistan was heating up. 60,000 more were ordered in 2005 and were to be distributed to all branches of the military, as everyone was needing more sidearms in Iraq.
Since 1990, the M9's design and construction has changed very little. Really only some of the small parts are different today. Around 2001, the magazine catch, lanyard ring, and trigger were switched from metal to polymer. Well actually, the trigger has a steel core, with a polymer outer coating. The magazine floorplate was changed from one made of metal, to one made of the same polymer; at least on Beretta and Mec-Gar magazines. The grip screws were changed from having a slotted head, to a hex type. A short time later, the hollow round steel guide rod was replaced with a fluted polymer one. Finally, a few years later, the safety too was switched to polymer, which some sources claim also has a metal core (but I myself have not varified this). Naturally, using polymer parts did save on weight a bit and was less expensive, but those were not the only reasons. The polymer mag catch puts less wear on magazines and the polymer baseplate withstands being dropped onto the ground better. The polymer safety and trigger can not rust like steel parts could, which since these parts make contact with often sweaty hands regularly, is a consideration. Of course the one switch that is often most criticized is the polymer guide rod. Actually though, this is a clear upgrade from the original. The round rod could trap sand in between the slide, hampering the pistol's performance. This is why the new rod is fluted. The old rod was partially hollow, so it was possible to bend it in extreme situations, such as dropping the pistol muzzle first onto a hard surface, with the slide retracted or by launching it into a wall during disassembly. A metal rod could bend slightly and impact the pistol's functioning, but a polymer rod is either fine or broken in two. No ambiguity there as to if you have a servicible or junk part.
Internally, the only change of note occurred to the locking block. In the early 1990s, just after the M9 began to see deployment in real numbers, Beretta introduced a new stronger block. This was done to insure the pistol could handle a continuous diet of 9mm +P ammunition, without experiencing a major breakage that is. Finally, around 2000, at least some M9s were manufactured with a backstrap that was scalloped slightly at the top. I know this was done with commercial 92FSs to allow shooters with smaller hands to obtain a higher grip, however only recently have I learned that some military M9s also feature it. Still though, the design has changed remarkably little considering how long it has been not only in production, but in the field under actual combat conditions. That has to say something about Beretta and its original 92FS design. Even the legendary M1911 had to be updated with some changes, after it saw real world use during and after WWI.
the 21st Century M9A1:
(Current production M9A1, with milspec Crimson Trace LG402m laser grips and CMR202 weapons light)
The M9 began its service in the first Gulf War, and has since seen action all around the globe. There was discussion in the early 2000s of replacing the Beretta with a different design; which many were hoping would hail a return to the .45 ACP cartridge. Both the Army and Special Operations Forces went as far as combining their efforts in the Joint Combat Pistol Program, in 2005. The JCP called for a .45 pistol, with and without a manual safety, and the ability to except extended capacity magazines and to be able to mount lasers and lights. Commercially available models from many manufacturers were discussed. These included ones from S&W, H&K, SIG, FNH, and Beretta.
However, in 2006, further funding for research and testing of possible M9 replacements under the JCP Program was drastically cut. Then the Army withdrew and it became just the CP Program lead only by Spec-Ops. At the same time, the M9A1 was accepted into service by the USMC, who were tired of the Army and Air Force arguing over what exactly the requirements for the new wonder pistol should be. Instead, the USMC took a prooven design and requested a few minor but important updates.
The M9A1 is a modernized Beretta M9 with the addition of a Picatinny rail under the barrel. The trigger guard was strengthened and reshaped, to allow easy use with lights and lasers mounted on the rail. The grip was also redesigned with checkered front and back straps, as well as having a beveled magazine well. It includes a new type of magazine, with a sand releaf groove running vertically on each side. Additionally, the magazine has a new PVD applied 'anti-friction' finish, which is supposed to offer greater feeding reliability in dry and dusty environments.
The USMC originally ordered 3,500 M9A1s, and increased its order to 7,500 at the end of 2006. Two years later, it ordered 500 additional pistols. Other branches though continued to use and even order new standard M9s. In 2007, the Army and Navy together ordered 10,500 standard M9s, to replace wornout or destroyed sidearms. So what happened to the CP Program and the would-be .45 replacement for the M9? Basically it was killed altogether that same year.
At the beginning of 2010, when the M9 reached its 25th adoption anniversary, Beretta stated at the time, that over 800,000 pieces had been purchased and delivered to the United States military. By the beginning of 2014, thousands more M9 and M9A1s have been shipped out. The military estimates that as many as 1,000,000 M9s will be in service before the model is retired. It has successfully out lived any possible replacements that have come along to date.
M9 Magazines & Gear:
(Early all parkerized metal, modern parkerized with polymer base, PVD metal with polymer base, and Airtronic contract parkerized magazines)
Several different makes and types of magazines have been used in and issued with the M9 pistol. During the 1980s, they were Beretta factory which I believe even back then were made under contract by Mec-Gar. In the 1990s, the military purchased some mags directly from Mec-Gar, before switching to ones manufactured in the USA by Check-Mate. CM was awarded the contract for a simple reason, it had the lowest bid and was considered a 'low risk' contracter. Much has been made today about how CM mags are unreliable junk, but honestly it isn't the company's fault. It built magazines to the military specs it was given, heavy phosphated coating and all. Of course, with such a low bid, CM did cut some manufacturing corners too.
It was these CM mags that Americans went to war with in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001-2003. In those harsh environments, they prooved to be less than reliable. In particular, the milspec coating used was found to attract and collect sand and dust, especially when well oiled. When not well oiled though, magazines could sometimes stick, and since the inside of the mag tube was also phosphated, the follower itself could fail to rise properly; causing feed problems. In 2005, the military looked into the numerous reports of M9 failures in the field, and came to the conclusion that the magazines were primarily to blame.
In 2006, a contest was held to select a new vender to supply M9 magazines to the military. The three main contenders were Triple K, Airtronic, and Check-Mate. With the lowest bid and an improved mag design, Airtronic was awarded the contract in 2008. The company claims it referred to the original Beretta/Mec-Gar blueprints and notes, when designing its version of the M9 magazine. Of course it also had to conform to milspec requirements too. It was still phosphated, but with a thinner/smoother coating, and the inside of the tube wasn't as heavily finished either. The baseplate was changed to thinner stamped steel to both save on weight and cost also.
After loosing the contract, Check-Mate went back and redesigned its own magazine model. Mec-Gar, though it didn't enter into recent US military mag trials, has kept its own 92FS/M9 magazines up to date, including an improved phosphate finish and polymer baseplate. Beretta itself designed the M9A1 type magazine in 2005, with its enhanced PVD coating.
Today the military issues several types of magazines for the M9. Older MG and CM ones are still in inventory, there are plenty of Airtronics floating around, and many Beretta PVD mags are now in the field. On top of those, recently CM was given another chance and several of its new, improved magazines were purchased in 2012. Though nothing mechanical can ever be made 100% reliable, in all environments, all of the time; these new generation mags are performing much better than the older ones. Also keep in mind that when the milspec finish for the M9 magazine was outlined in the 1980s, planners were concerned with protecting the metal from moisture, as Vietnam and tropical warfare were still on their minds. It took time and a bit of trial and error to adapt the weapon system for optimal performance in a desert climate.
Most agree that the factory PVD mags work the best in Iraq, with phosphated MGs coming in as a close second. Airtronics aren't quite thought of as highly, but I've been unable to find many specific cases where a failure was directly attributable to their magazine. Even the newer CMs are doing fine. In other words, it appears as if most of the kinks have been worked out of the design now.
(A current production Beretta factory extended 30rd magazine)
As for capacity, the standard M9 magazine holds 15 rounds; however, the pistol can feed from any 92FS comparable magazine. Early on, Beretta also offered an extended 20 rounder for use in the select fire variant, and for law enforcement users of the semi 92 series. Recently, an enlarged capacity and flush fit version was released, which holds 17 cartridges. If that is still not enough firepower, Beretta just released a long 30 rounder, with grip extension. 30 round mags have been available on the aftermarket for years, but they were never terribly reliable. The new factory high-capper though is prooving to be about as reliable as any 9mm magazine so long with such a strong spring, can be.
(Bianchi 2 pocket pouch, a single pocket pouch, and milspec lanyard cord)
(M12 Bianchi holster, with M1025 belt)
The M12 ambidextrous universal holster was designed by Bianchi in the 1980s, specifically for the US military to use with the M9. Though many soldiers use newer, more modern holster designs today, the M12 is still the official general issue M9 holster. Other accessories include the M1025 dual magazine pouch (also by Bianchi), the M1015 pistol belt, and a nylon lanyard cord. Often times though, soldiers private purchase gear that they feel better suits their individual needs and tastes. Several different makes and models of pouches have NSNs, and often rather than using an official lanyard, simple para-cord is substituded for.
Because Everyone Else Is Doing it, the M9 vs....
I am going to try and keep this short, but I will probably fail at it. Everyone always compares the 92FS/M9 to the P226, Glock, and M1911A1. Its practically a weekend passtime in the firearms community. Still it is interesting. The 92FS and P226 are true contemperaries, the M1911A1 is at least two generations older than the 92FS, and the Glock is nearly a full generation younger.
The M1911A1 and the 92FS honestly do not share much in common, aside from the simple fact that they both survived very intensive testing and abuse at the hands of the US military. The M1911A1 has a larger caliber going for it, as well as a slimmer grip and better SAO trigger. It also has a frame mounted safety, which many prefer. However, it can only be engaged with the hammer back. The M1911A1 falls short when it comes to capacity. It might fire a large bullet, but it only holds 7 to 8 rounds in its magazine. It also has more felt recoil, small profile sights, has no ambidextrous controls, disassembles into several parts (some quite small too), and its hammer must be cocked before firing. The 92FS holds more than twice as many rounds, has a DA/SA trigger, ambidextrous safety that also decocks the hammer, disassembles into 6 larger parts, and has larger profile sights. That said, yes it holds more but 9mm is considered less effective than .45 ACP by many. Then again, 9mm has less felt recoil and produces less muzzle flip than .45, so its easier for novices to hit accurately with. The M1911A1 has always required a bit of skill and experience to shoot accurately. The 92FS is lighter than the M1911A1, but only by about 4 oz when both are fully loaded. Its DA trigger is smooth but heavy, making an accurate first shot difficult for some. Others criticise its SA trigger, but mine feels about as heavy as an SAO on a military M1911A1. People should remember that there are differences between a commercial M1911A1 and a standard milspec one, especially in trigger quality. Still any M1911A1's trigger can be made very nice, and there is only so much one can do to improve the 92FS's. The Beretta's safety is reliable and durable, but many do not like its placement on the slide. Some even activate it accidentally when racking the slide. The 92FS's grip is larger than the M1911A1s, which is a problem for people with smaller hands. Some anyway. I have smaller hands and I find it comfortable enough. When it comes to reliability, tests have proven that actually a well maintained M9 will go longer in between stoppages, than a well maintained milspec M1911A1. Both are very reliable pistols though.
Moving on to SIG's P226, it and the 92FS have much in common. In fact, since they were both designed and modified for the XM9 trials and made it to the final round, they both look very similar on paper. Both have alloy frames with steel slides, fire 9mm, have DA/SA triggers, a decocking device, a standard magazine capacity of 15 rounds, and are easily disassembled into 6 large parts. Both are equally durable really, and both have an equally heavy trigger in DA and only a so-so one in SA. Many people like the P226's frame mounted decocking lever better than the 92FS's slide mounted combination decocker/safety. However, the P226 lacks a manual safety of any kind and its decocker is not ambidextrous. Weight and size of the two designs are roughly the same, though the SIG has a slightly shorter 4.5" barrel. The P226 lost out to the 92FS because of its associated costs, but today it does serve with the Navy SEALs as the MK25 and the compact P228 is in limited use accross all branches as the M11. So SIG didn't totally loose the XM9 trials. Well technically they did, but they did obtain later (if much smaller) military contracts.
And finally, the Glock G17. The G17 came out in the early 1980s but was not qualified to even enter the XM9 trials because it was striker fired; not hammer. Also, at that time very few people were open minded enough to give a polymer framed pistol a fair chance. It took over a decade for it to gain widespread acceptance, and Glock had to work and market hard to get where it is today. The 92FS was just conventional enough for the military in 1980 and even then, Beretta had had half a decade to refine it. The Glock is lighter than the Beretta, holds 17 rounds standard, is both durable and reliable, and is instinctive to operate for most users. Its frame really can't rust, and its slide and barrel are very resistant to it. On the otherhand, its striker firing system means it has to be cocked before firing and in the event of a miss fire, the slide must be retracted to reset the striker for a second attempt. The G17 lacks both a decocker and manual safety, but does have 3 automatic ones. Like the 92FS, it has a larger grip, but more so front to back then side to side. Both are equally reliable, but the Glock requires less oiling. The Glock does look superior to the Beretta on paper, but keep in mind it is from a more recent generation of service handguns. Comparing these two, would have been like comparing the M1911A1 to the Walther P.38 half a century ago. The fact remains, the Glock G17 was simply not ready when the XM9 trials were held; and even if it were, the US military was not ready for a polymer framed pistol. Hell, back then it was barely accepting of a frame made of alloy rather than steel.
The M1911A1 is a truely Classic pistol, right up there with the P.08 Luger. Unlike the Luger though, it is still a viable combat weapon today, for certain shooters and in certain situations at least. The SIG P226 is one of the best firearms in its class, and its difficult to find anyone who seriously dislikes it. Pretty much the same can be said for the Glock series. They are all just great service sidearms: reliable, durable, accurate, and none cost a mint to manufacture either. And right there with them all, is the Beretta 92FS/M9. It has its faults and flaws, but so does every other firearm ever dreamed up. Its heavy trigger at least, really can not be blamed on Beretta either. It was neccessary to have it in order to satisfy the milspec for safety and reliable primer ignition of all ammunition types. I do not feel the M1911A1 is superior to the M9, and I do feel it is at least on par with both the P226 and Glock.
the Future of the M9:
Today, the 92FS is one of the most popular handguns in the world. It has seen use by dozens of militaries and hundreds of police departments. The 1951 might have put Pietro Beretta on the International firearms map, but the 92 secured the company's position. It is an incredibly reliable, durable, and accurate handgun. The slide moves as if it is on ballbarings, the controls are instinctive, and it has a simplistic field strip procedure (like most all of Beretta's pistols). This is just personal taste of course, but I appreciate how it handles and shoots. My own examples have never once jammed or otherwise malfunctioned. I have found it to be even more reliable than a Glock or SIG. It is well made, with nice machining and attention to detail, especially for a general issue military sidearm. If you can't tell, it is one of my very favorite pistols of all time.
However, to hear tell in gunshops, online forums, and at gunshows; the 92FS/M9 is a giant piece of shit, that both endangers the shooter directly by flying apart in the hand and by being so unreliable that one is lucky to get more than 2 shots off without a jam. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, people seem to love to hate on the Beretta. So for years, rumours have abounded that the military is going to replace the M9 with something else. Young, modern Mall Ninjas and Tactical Commandos want whatever is the most recent, hottest fad in the firearms community. Older long retired Vets and civilian Arm Chair Commandos though, basically have always wanted a return to the good old Colt M1911A1. And there in lies the problem, much like the public, the branches of the military haven't been able to come together and decide on even a possible replacement for the M9. Hell, they can't even agree on what the requirements for a new sidearm should be. From time to time, a Special Forces unit in one of the services will purchase a small number of handguns, say 500 to 5,000; and often times this is what gets a new rumour going that the entire US military is about to replace the M9. Other times, small studies and limited trials are held, featuring various pistols.
Meanwhile, if one zooms out and looks at the bigger picture, its pretty clear the M9 still has a future with our Armed Forces. In 2009, Beretta made quite a big deal out of announcing the fact that it had just secured a 5 year contract with the US government, which might call for as many as 450,000 new M9 and M9A1 pistols. These pistols were for both domestic use and for use by American overseas Allies. Beretta's 5 year mission to Boldly go where no firearms company has gone before, ends this year,however in 2012, an additional 5 year order was placed for 100,000 more pistols.
Its true that in 2014, the military plans to again examine off the shelf current production pistol designs from half a dozen manufacturers, including Colt, S&W, and even Beretta; but honestly know one could possibly know for sure if what they find will result in any changes. The military has invested so much time, training, and funding into the M9. Switching to a new design would cost substantially more than maintaining the existing one, and for what? Yes, the M9 has faults and failings but if it were total trash, even the US military wouldn't have kept it around for nearly 30 years. The simple truth is, any pistol design will have hidden, unknown faults; which will only come out after being put through the total shit that only the military can dish out oh so well. On top of that, yes many modern 21st century pistol designs are better than the Beretta, which dates back to the 1970s; but are they so much better, so much of a leap ahead that its worth investing millions to re-equip our entire military with them? And if we did conduct another round of testing and trials, it would take years (if not a decade) like it did both in 1910 and 1985. The Beretta 92 was quite advanced in 1975 but it took 10 years for it to be adopted and another 5 for it to be perfected and deployed. So a pistol that is state-of-the-art by today's standards, by the time it was actually fielded several years later, wouldn't be the newest and greatest thing any more. The military could spend millions of dollars and countless manhours today to adopt something that is marginally better than the Beretta, or it could wait until there really is a revolutionary step forward in handgun technology and adopt that pistol instead. Finally, one also has to ask, just how important is the pistol to the average 21st soldier? I am not talking about Special Forces or troops on special assignment, I am talking about just your normal officer or NCO who is issued a pistol as a matter of course.
For soldiers with unique needs or for specific missions, there are other pistols available already such as the SIG Sauer P228 M11 and P226 MK25, the HK MK23 Mod 0, and even the Glock G19. In addition to those modern pistols, both the USMC and Navy retain the good old M1911A1 in their inventories. They do not have many, but when an original one wears out, they do purchase a new one from Colt or Springfield. Just a few years ago, the Marines bought 4,500 from Colt in fact. Still, for most soldiers and in most situations, the M9 with good magazines manages to provide acceptable service. If the soldier needs to attach a laser or light device, there are aftermarket adapters available for the M9, and even the railed M9A1 if there is no other practical solution. There is another benefit of the Beretta. It has been around so long, and used by so many, that virtually every parts and accessories vender offers gear for it. Its no problem to find magazines, sights, holsters, grips, and lasers designed specifically to work with the 92FS/M9.
So in the end, though many wish to replace the thing, none seem to be able to come up with enough justifications to actually do so. The M9 is good enough for now, and the military has indicated that it will remain standard issue until at least 2020. Afterall, they are still buying the things. They stopped buying M1911A1s in 1945, but kept that one as GI for 40 more years. Of course they did have a shit ton of them stock piled up after WWII, so they didn't exactly need more. Maybe in a decade or so, something truely new and advanced will have come along, which can really benefit and protect our soldiers? At the end of the day, that is what its all about too. Its not about which we as individuals like more, be it the Glock or M&P or Beretta or even the M1911A1; its about giving our soldiers the best gear, but balanced against the costs. Don't forget where those millions of dollars the military spends comes from. Its ultimately tax payer money. The government bean counters shouldn't have the run of things, but some more actual fiscal responsibility and spending restraint within our government (including our military) would honestly be a welcome change.
So I say hold off on totally replacing the M9, and only re-equip a few troops with more modern off the shelf designs as needed. Do this until the millions it would cost to select and field a new service sidearm are truely justified. Look at the M9 vs. the M1911A1. The M1911 has many virtues and is even better than the M9 in some areas, but the M9 is clearly a more advanced design, generationally speaking. We need to wait until we can make that kind of technological leap forward, before moving to a completely new GI sidearm. As to those who think we should just go back to the M1911A1, as our GI sidearm, I can only say that's a truely stupid idea. It also shows a lack of understanding of our modern military, its missions, and the abilities of its soldiers. Yes, in some situations, the M1911A1 is the right tool for the job, but those are in the minority today. Its like a specialized star headed screw driver; great and even required for removing one type of screw. The M9 is more like a flathead screw driver. Its not especially great at any one thing (and you sure can't use it to remove that special star head screw), but damn is it useful for general work. Really what most like about the M1911A1 is its .45 ACP cartridge. The US military just isn't going to go back to it again, forget about it. Having a GI handgun that uses the NATO standard round is very important at the strategic level. This is also why something like .40 S&W won't become the US military's new service cartridge either, at least not until the rest of NATO also moves away from 9mm. That doesn't look likely either, because much like the M9 itself, 9mm NATO is a good enough round for now. It may not have quite the knockdown power of the big-old .45 ACP, but on the other hand it is lighter so soldiers can carry more, it has less felt recoil so its easier for novices to use effectively, and because its smaller more can be squeezed into a magazine. Finally, if we replaced the Beretta M9 and 9mm NATO, what would all those gunshop, forums, and gunshow people have to bitch about then? I tell you what they'd do, they'd start complaining about the new service pistol. Probably even before more than 10,000 were in the field. Hell probably the same day the new adoption was announced! And you know what else? then the Beretta M9 would slowly but surely start to become the best thing ever in the minds of the shooting public. The M1911A1 had more than its share of critics and complaints surrounding it too; especially in Korea and Vietnam. It wasn't until it was being replaced that so many civilians started to treat it like it was firearms perfection. What happened was when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994, single stack low cap pistols like the M1911A1 went from being moderately popular, to extremely so. In the 1970s and 1980s, so called 'Wonder 9s' were all the rage, with their double stack high capacity magazines. Since the AWB limited civilian handguns to either preban magazines or low-cap 10 rounders, most felt that if they couldn't have lots of shots, they might as well have powerful ones. I lived through that era. I can recall the shift from one style to the other. Of course, that is only one factor too.
For now, it sure looks as if the Beretta M9 will remain the US military's standard service sidearm, for at least another combat generation. Just as a side note, after a decade of developing and testing possible replacements for the Colt M4 and M16A4, just last year the military announced it would update the rifles it already has and not adopt a wholey new platform. I suspect we will see something rather similar happen with the M9.
M9 Specifications:
Service: 1985-1990 limited service for evaluation and improvement, 1990-On going as standard issue
Number in US Military: 1,000,000 (projected number by 2015)
weight: 2 lb 2 oz (original all metal version) 2 lb 1 oz (current version with polymer parts)
length: 8.5"
barrel: 4.9"
Operating System Double/Single Action, Automatic Pistol,
Safety: Slide mounted manual with automatic decocker, Internal automatic firing pin block, Loaded chamber indicator,
Sights: Bar & Dot Style
Cartridge: 9mm NATO
Capacity: 15 rounds standard (17, 20, & 30 extended available)
I've done a thread on US service sidearms, and another on Italian military pistols; but never one wholly dedicated to one of my favorites; Beretta's 92FS/M9. I just picked up an M9A1 and finished kitting it out, so i thought I would show it and my other two off today. Also, recently I found a new home for my 2005 production M9, so soon it will be handed over to a new owner after nearly a decade of being mine. So this is a Goodbye dedication to it too, a pistol that has served me well and never once malfunctioned on me. I've always enjoyed shooting it and most everyone I've ever let do so too liked it. More than a couple ended up buying one later themselves.
I took parts out of my 2 old threads; updated, corrected, and edited them to form part of this one. Most here though has been newly shitted out for your cullenary enjoyment!
Much like the classic debate over Cats vs. Dogs, we have the one that goes something like the M1911A1 vs. the M9. So lets wade into the world of military politics, backroom dealing, and arm chair commando'ing.
Born In Italy:
(Original first pattern 92 from the 1970s)
The Beretta M92FS or M9, is the most famous Italian pistol today, at least in the U.S.A. There is much out there on this design, so i won't even attempt to reproduce it all here. It is extremely interesting to look at Beretta's first automatic, the Brevetto 1915, and compare it to the 92FS. The lineage is more than a bit apparent. Of course the Beretta 92FS is the American general issue sidearm today, for all military branches, under the designation of M9.
The model took inspiration from the 1951, but was a new design. Development lasted from 1972 until 1975, with a limited production run in 1976. In the late 1970s Pietro Beretta introduced the 92 as their next-generation military and police handgun. It used the same Walther pattern falling block locking system as the 1951, as well as the same open topped slide; but there the similarities ended. The 92 is a double action / single action automatic handgun, with lever type safety, 4.9" long barrel, lightweight alloy frame, and double stack magazine with a standard capacity of 15 rounds. extended magazines are available too. The design quickly was altered to meet the needs of its users.
(A 92S, the first major variant in the family)
The 92S variant introduced a combination decocker/safety leverrelocated to the slide, something requested by police agencies in both Europe and North America. Originally, it was located at the rear of the pistol's frame, similar to an FN High Power. The 92S-1 was an altered 92S, with the magazine release moved from the heel to behind the trigger guard, new ambidextrous safety, and vertical texturing applied to the grip straps. The mag catch could be reversed, to suit either handed shooter also. It was created for the first round of US military trials held in 1981.
(A 92SB, with updated controls and firing pin block)
The 92S-1 morphed into the 92SB which introduced an automatic firing pin block, making the pistol drop-safe. The 92G had a decocker only safety lever, and was made to fulfill the needs of the French military. The 92SBF version was built for the 1984 U.S. military XM9 trials. It had a chrome lined barrel, as well as a corrosion resistant finish to all of the metal parts. Beretta's name for this type of blued finish is Bruniton. It also had a reshaped trigger guard and 100% parts interchangeability. The designation of 92SBF was shortened to 92F in 1987, after the pistol had won the XM9 military trials.
The 92DS is a 92F, with a double action only trigger and bobbed hammer. The 92D is the same firearm, but lacking a manual safety. Finally, the 92FS is an updated 92F, with improved metalergy and safety features. It became the new M9 standard in 1989. Beretta has released many other versions of the 92 design, some in different calibers and/or with compact slides.
Trials and Tribulations in the USA:
(early commercial M9 'Special Edition,' with original style metal parts)
The famous or infamous Beretta M9 pistol. Some like it, some hate it, and most just like to hate it, but will actually admit its not bad if forced to do so. As with the M1911 nearly 75 years before, the Beretta underwent years of testing and product improvement before it was officially adopted into the United States Armed Forces as the Model 9 service pistol. It is still very much the current standard issue sidearm today, despite frequently reoccurring rumours of its demise.
The story of the M9 goes back to the formation of the Joint Services Small Arms Planning Commission in the late 1970s. This was the group that decided that America's military should transition away from the .45 ACP cartridge, and adopt the 9x19mm round in order to have a common handgun cartridge with other NATO member nations. Thus in 1979, trials for a new handgun were announced and it was to be chambered for a slightly modernized version of the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge, later designated as 9mm NATO. Ironically nearly the same cartridge had been tested by the US military in 1907, when it first looked at the Luger. This decision had the unintended side effect of making many marines' heads explode.
In 1980, Beretta's entry of the 92S-1 for the first round of trials conducted by the Air Force wonout over others submitted by such companies as Colt, Smith & Wesson, FNH, and H&K. Naturally, feeling that a bunch of flyboys couldn't know much about firearms, the Army contested the results of the trial. Keep in mind, it was also the Air Force that spearheaded the adoption of the M16. A rifle system so terrible , that it only has lasted over 50 years in military service. So in 1981, the Army announced a new round of testing to be administrated by themselves, with their own particular criteria and standards. Again Colt, H&K, SIG, and Beretta submitted pistols; and the Colt M1911A1 was used as a control. Beretta this time submitted its product improved 92SB and it failed the trials. Don't worry though, every other pistol did too, including the entry from SIG. Most who studied all of the standards and guidelines agree, that this round of testing was rigged to favour the M1911A1. Why would the Army do that? so it could keep the well loved old Colt and its .45 ACP cartridge as standard issue.
Though the USMC was perfectly happy with the outcome of this last round of pistol trials, the USAF was not. Neither was Congress, who ordered a third round in 1983, and just to tweek the Army's nose, the budget line for funding to purchase additional .45 ACP ammunition was cut. So basically, either choose something in 9mm or learn to fire rocks out of the M1911A1 when ammo stocks run out in a few years.
In 1984, the XM9 trials were held, with entries from Colt, S&W, FNH, H&K, SIG Sauer, Steyr, Walther, and Beretta. Again, Beretta submitted an improved design, the 92SBF. Half of the designs were disqualified early on for technical reasons, and the Walther and FN didn't pass initial durability testing. In the end, it was between the Beretta 92SBF and the SIG Sauer P226. The two ran neck and neck for a time, with the beancounters even getting involved to see which pistol package would be less expensive, even down to literally a few cents. Naturally, the Beretta 92SBF pistol won again, and naturally many still continued to protest. A rumour has even been widely circulated that Beretta was tipped off (illegally) to SIG's bid, so it could come in with a lower one. No hard evidence has ever come to light to support the accusation though. What is very clear is that Beretta really wanted that contract and would have done just about anything to win it. I think in the end, they simply wanted it more than SIG Sauer, who was already starting to show more interest in the law enforcement market.
Despite every objection and obsticle, in January of 1985, the 92SBF was officially adopted into US military service as the Model 9 automatic pistol. The Army, Air Force, and Navy all agreed to the new design; but the Marines resisted and the Coast Guard did not have the funds for large scale purchasing at the time. Nevertheless, adoption moved forward, with M9 manufacturing transitioning from Beretta's Italian factory, to their one in Accokeek, MD USA.
Shortly after adoption, two problems were noticed. First off, cracking was observed in the frame, behind the grip. A military study concluded this issue did not pose as a danger to the shooter and was only cosmetically displeasing. Nevertheless, Beretta was ordered to fix the problem if it wanted to retain its nice fat government contract. So by 1988, a retrofit was developed for the frame which successfully prevented further cracks from appearing. The other issue was more serious and had to do with M9 slides. In 1987, it seems some slides were breaking and flying back to hit the shooters. These run-away slides killed over 500 US serviceman and Beretta never even said 'sorry!'
No not really, only 3 slides actually separated from their frames in the field and no one was seriously harmed, much less killed. During testing, the military was able to reproduce the malfunction 11 times, most occurring after 10,000 rounds and some not until after over 30,000. Still this was not acceptable and the problem was eventually traced back to slides manufactured with too soft metal produced in Italy. Some also claimed (including Beretta themselves) the malfunctions were due in part to over pressure ammunition having been used, though this doesn't seem to have been the case. In 1988, the metalergy was improved and M9s began to be 100% made in the USA at Beretta's US factory. A hammer pin with an enlarged head was added to Beretta's improved 92FS design, which even if the slide did break; would not allow it to separate from the frame.
As a result of M9 problems, the XM10 trials were held in 1988 and again Beretta won, with the product improved 92FS, which became the new milspec for the M9. By 1990, the new pistol began to see widespread use throughout all branches of the military, replacing old 1911s and revolvers, of which many dated back to WWII and even WWI.
A Maturing Service Sidearm:
(M9 '20th Anniversary Edition,' with late style polymer parts)
Despite all of the negativity surrounding it and a bit of a rocky start, the M9 has actually prooven to be a decent service sidearm. It replaced a single action only design with a7 round magazine, whose safety could only be engaged once the hammer was back afterall. The M9 has a smooth trigger in double action, and an acceptably short and crisp single action pull. It is lighter than the old Colt, but retains a 5" barrel, and its sights are easier to acquire. It holds 15+1 rounds, and the safety is both ambidextrous and can be engaged with the hammer down. This means the slide can be fully racked, with the safety constantly engaged, which can be useful in certain situations. The M9 is reliable and durable, and not highly succeptible to harsh climates. It is easier to field strip and clean than the M1911 as well. So have I sold you yet? Of course the Beretta isn't perfect and has its downsides too, but its not the worst thing ever and the 9mm cartridge can be just as leathal as a .45. The top three complaints that soldiers express about this pistol are: its caliber, its weight, and its grip size. On the other hand, many like its large capacity and its low felt recoil. As to caliber, don't blame the Beretta. The US government wanted a 9mm, and no matter which handgun was going to be selected, it was going to be in that caliber. I am sure Beretta would have offered a version of the 92 in .45 ACP if the trials had called for such a thing.
In 1985, the US military placed an initial order for just under 316,000 pistols with Beretta USA. Then in 1989, a second large order for 50,000 was placed. Throughout the 1990s, Beretta delivered pistols to all branches of the military at regular intervals, with completion in 1998.
In 2002, the USAF ordered an additional 19,000 M9s as the war in Afghanistan was heating up. 60,000 more were ordered in 2005 and were to be distributed to all branches of the military, as everyone was needing more sidearms in Iraq.
Since 1990, the M9's design and construction has changed very little. Really only some of the small parts are different today. Around 2001, the magazine catch, lanyard ring, and trigger were switched from metal to polymer. Well actually, the trigger has a steel core, with a polymer outer coating. The magazine floorplate was changed from one made of metal, to one made of the same polymer; at least on Beretta and Mec-Gar magazines. The grip screws were changed from having a slotted head, to a hex type. A short time later, the hollow round steel guide rod was replaced with a fluted polymer one. Finally, a few years later, the safety too was switched to polymer, which some sources claim also has a metal core (but I myself have not varified this). Naturally, using polymer parts did save on weight a bit and was less expensive, but those were not the only reasons. The polymer mag catch puts less wear on magazines and the polymer baseplate withstands being dropped onto the ground better. The polymer safety and trigger can not rust like steel parts could, which since these parts make contact with often sweaty hands regularly, is a consideration. Of course the one switch that is often most criticized is the polymer guide rod. Actually though, this is a clear upgrade from the original. The round rod could trap sand in between the slide, hampering the pistol's performance. This is why the new rod is fluted. The old rod was partially hollow, so it was possible to bend it in extreme situations, such as dropping the pistol muzzle first onto a hard surface, with the slide retracted or by launching it into a wall during disassembly. A metal rod could bend slightly and impact the pistol's functioning, but a polymer rod is either fine or broken in two. No ambiguity there as to if you have a servicible or junk part.
Internally, the only change of note occurred to the locking block. In the early 1990s, just after the M9 began to see deployment in real numbers, Beretta introduced a new stronger block. This was done to insure the pistol could handle a continuous diet of 9mm +P ammunition, without experiencing a major breakage that is. Finally, around 2000, at least some M9s were manufactured with a backstrap that was scalloped slightly at the top. I know this was done with commercial 92FSs to allow shooters with smaller hands to obtain a higher grip, however only recently have I learned that some military M9s also feature it. Still though, the design has changed remarkably little considering how long it has been not only in production, but in the field under actual combat conditions. That has to say something about Beretta and its original 92FS design. Even the legendary M1911 had to be updated with some changes, after it saw real world use during and after WWI.
the 21st Century M9A1:
(Current production M9A1, with milspec Crimson Trace LG402m laser grips and CMR202 weapons light)
The M9 began its service in the first Gulf War, and has since seen action all around the globe. There was discussion in the early 2000s of replacing the Beretta with a different design; which many were hoping would hail a return to the .45 ACP cartridge. Both the Army and Special Operations Forces went as far as combining their efforts in the Joint Combat Pistol Program, in 2005. The JCP called for a .45 pistol, with and without a manual safety, and the ability to except extended capacity magazines and to be able to mount lasers and lights. Commercially available models from many manufacturers were discussed. These included ones from S&W, H&K, SIG, FNH, and Beretta.
However, in 2006, further funding for research and testing of possible M9 replacements under the JCP Program was drastically cut. Then the Army withdrew and it became just the CP Program lead only by Spec-Ops. At the same time, the M9A1 was accepted into service by the USMC, who were tired of the Army and Air Force arguing over what exactly the requirements for the new wonder pistol should be. Instead, the USMC took a prooven design and requested a few minor but important updates.
The M9A1 is a modernized Beretta M9 with the addition of a Picatinny rail under the barrel. The trigger guard was strengthened and reshaped, to allow easy use with lights and lasers mounted on the rail. The grip was also redesigned with checkered front and back straps, as well as having a beveled magazine well. It includes a new type of magazine, with a sand releaf groove running vertically on each side. Additionally, the magazine has a new PVD applied 'anti-friction' finish, which is supposed to offer greater feeding reliability in dry and dusty environments.
The USMC originally ordered 3,500 M9A1s, and increased its order to 7,500 at the end of 2006. Two years later, it ordered 500 additional pistols. Other branches though continued to use and even order new standard M9s. In 2007, the Army and Navy together ordered 10,500 standard M9s, to replace wornout or destroyed sidearms. So what happened to the CP Program and the would-be .45 replacement for the M9? Basically it was killed altogether that same year.
At the beginning of 2010, when the M9 reached its 25th adoption anniversary, Beretta stated at the time, that over 800,000 pieces had been purchased and delivered to the United States military. By the beginning of 2014, thousands more M9 and M9A1s have been shipped out. The military estimates that as many as 1,000,000 M9s will be in service before the model is retired. It has successfully out lived any possible replacements that have come along to date.
M9 Magazines & Gear:
(Early all parkerized metal, modern parkerized with polymer base, PVD metal with polymer base, and Airtronic contract parkerized magazines)
Several different makes and types of magazines have been used in and issued with the M9 pistol. During the 1980s, they were Beretta factory which I believe even back then were made under contract by Mec-Gar. In the 1990s, the military purchased some mags directly from Mec-Gar, before switching to ones manufactured in the USA by Check-Mate. CM was awarded the contract for a simple reason, it had the lowest bid and was considered a 'low risk' contracter. Much has been made today about how CM mags are unreliable junk, but honestly it isn't the company's fault. It built magazines to the military specs it was given, heavy phosphated coating and all. Of course, with such a low bid, CM did cut some manufacturing corners too.
It was these CM mags that Americans went to war with in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001-2003. In those harsh environments, they prooved to be less than reliable. In particular, the milspec coating used was found to attract and collect sand and dust, especially when well oiled. When not well oiled though, magazines could sometimes stick, and since the inside of the mag tube was also phosphated, the follower itself could fail to rise properly; causing feed problems. In 2005, the military looked into the numerous reports of M9 failures in the field, and came to the conclusion that the magazines were primarily to blame.
In 2006, a contest was held to select a new vender to supply M9 magazines to the military. The three main contenders were Triple K, Airtronic, and Check-Mate. With the lowest bid and an improved mag design, Airtronic was awarded the contract in 2008. The company claims it referred to the original Beretta/Mec-Gar blueprints and notes, when designing its version of the M9 magazine. Of course it also had to conform to milspec requirements too. It was still phosphated, but with a thinner/smoother coating, and the inside of the tube wasn't as heavily finished either. The baseplate was changed to thinner stamped steel to both save on weight and cost also.
After loosing the contract, Check-Mate went back and redesigned its own magazine model. Mec-Gar, though it didn't enter into recent US military mag trials, has kept its own 92FS/M9 magazines up to date, including an improved phosphate finish and polymer baseplate. Beretta itself designed the M9A1 type magazine in 2005, with its enhanced PVD coating.
Today the military issues several types of magazines for the M9. Older MG and CM ones are still in inventory, there are plenty of Airtronics floating around, and many Beretta PVD mags are now in the field. On top of those, recently CM was given another chance and several of its new, improved magazines were purchased in 2012. Though nothing mechanical can ever be made 100% reliable, in all environments, all of the time; these new generation mags are performing much better than the older ones. Also keep in mind that when the milspec finish for the M9 magazine was outlined in the 1980s, planners were concerned with protecting the metal from moisture, as Vietnam and tropical warfare were still on their minds. It took time and a bit of trial and error to adapt the weapon system for optimal performance in a desert climate.
Most agree that the factory PVD mags work the best in Iraq, with phosphated MGs coming in as a close second. Airtronics aren't quite thought of as highly, but I've been unable to find many specific cases where a failure was directly attributable to their magazine. Even the newer CMs are doing fine. In other words, it appears as if most of the kinks have been worked out of the design now.
(A current production Beretta factory extended 30rd magazine)
As for capacity, the standard M9 magazine holds 15 rounds; however, the pistol can feed from any 92FS comparable magazine. Early on, Beretta also offered an extended 20 rounder for use in the select fire variant, and for law enforcement users of the semi 92 series. Recently, an enlarged capacity and flush fit version was released, which holds 17 cartridges. If that is still not enough firepower, Beretta just released a long 30 rounder, with grip extension. 30 round mags have been available on the aftermarket for years, but they were never terribly reliable. The new factory high-capper though is prooving to be about as reliable as any 9mm magazine so long with such a strong spring, can be.
(Bianchi 2 pocket pouch, a single pocket pouch, and milspec lanyard cord)
(M12 Bianchi holster, with M1025 belt)
The M12 ambidextrous universal holster was designed by Bianchi in the 1980s, specifically for the US military to use with the M9. Though many soldiers use newer, more modern holster designs today, the M12 is still the official general issue M9 holster. Other accessories include the M1025 dual magazine pouch (also by Bianchi), the M1015 pistol belt, and a nylon lanyard cord. Often times though, soldiers private purchase gear that they feel better suits their individual needs and tastes. Several different makes and models of pouches have NSNs, and often rather than using an official lanyard, simple para-cord is substituded for.
Because Everyone Else Is Doing it, the M9 vs....
I am going to try and keep this short, but I will probably fail at it. Everyone always compares the 92FS/M9 to the P226, Glock, and M1911A1. Its practically a weekend passtime in the firearms community. Still it is interesting. The 92FS and P226 are true contemperaries, the M1911A1 is at least two generations older than the 92FS, and the Glock is nearly a full generation younger.
The M1911A1 and the 92FS honestly do not share much in common, aside from the simple fact that they both survived very intensive testing and abuse at the hands of the US military. The M1911A1 has a larger caliber going for it, as well as a slimmer grip and better SAO trigger. It also has a frame mounted safety, which many prefer. However, it can only be engaged with the hammer back. The M1911A1 falls short when it comes to capacity. It might fire a large bullet, but it only holds 7 to 8 rounds in its magazine. It also has more felt recoil, small profile sights, has no ambidextrous controls, disassembles into several parts (some quite small too), and its hammer must be cocked before firing. The 92FS holds more than twice as many rounds, has a DA/SA trigger, ambidextrous safety that also decocks the hammer, disassembles into 6 larger parts, and has larger profile sights. That said, yes it holds more but 9mm is considered less effective than .45 ACP by many. Then again, 9mm has less felt recoil and produces less muzzle flip than .45, so its easier for novices to hit accurately with. The M1911A1 has always required a bit of skill and experience to shoot accurately. The 92FS is lighter than the M1911A1, but only by about 4 oz when both are fully loaded. Its DA trigger is smooth but heavy, making an accurate first shot difficult for some. Others criticise its SA trigger, but mine feels about as heavy as an SAO on a military M1911A1. People should remember that there are differences between a commercial M1911A1 and a standard milspec one, especially in trigger quality. Still any M1911A1's trigger can be made very nice, and there is only so much one can do to improve the 92FS's. The Beretta's safety is reliable and durable, but many do not like its placement on the slide. Some even activate it accidentally when racking the slide. The 92FS's grip is larger than the M1911A1s, which is a problem for people with smaller hands. Some anyway. I have smaller hands and I find it comfortable enough. When it comes to reliability, tests have proven that actually a well maintained M9 will go longer in between stoppages, than a well maintained milspec M1911A1. Both are very reliable pistols though.
Moving on to SIG's P226, it and the 92FS have much in common. In fact, since they were both designed and modified for the XM9 trials and made it to the final round, they both look very similar on paper. Both have alloy frames with steel slides, fire 9mm, have DA/SA triggers, a decocking device, a standard magazine capacity of 15 rounds, and are easily disassembled into 6 large parts. Both are equally durable really, and both have an equally heavy trigger in DA and only a so-so one in SA. Many people like the P226's frame mounted decocking lever better than the 92FS's slide mounted combination decocker/safety. However, the P226 lacks a manual safety of any kind and its decocker is not ambidextrous. Weight and size of the two designs are roughly the same, though the SIG has a slightly shorter 4.5" barrel. The P226 lost out to the 92FS because of its associated costs, but today it does serve with the Navy SEALs as the MK25 and the compact P228 is in limited use accross all branches as the M11. So SIG didn't totally loose the XM9 trials. Well technically they did, but they did obtain later (if much smaller) military contracts.
And finally, the Glock G17. The G17 came out in the early 1980s but was not qualified to even enter the XM9 trials because it was striker fired; not hammer. Also, at that time very few people were open minded enough to give a polymer framed pistol a fair chance. It took over a decade for it to gain widespread acceptance, and Glock had to work and market hard to get where it is today. The 92FS was just conventional enough for the military in 1980 and even then, Beretta had had half a decade to refine it. The Glock is lighter than the Beretta, holds 17 rounds standard, is both durable and reliable, and is instinctive to operate for most users. Its frame really can't rust, and its slide and barrel are very resistant to it. On the otherhand, its striker firing system means it has to be cocked before firing and in the event of a miss fire, the slide must be retracted to reset the striker for a second attempt. The G17 lacks both a decocker and manual safety, but does have 3 automatic ones. Like the 92FS, it has a larger grip, but more so front to back then side to side. Both are equally reliable, but the Glock requires less oiling. The Glock does look superior to the Beretta on paper, but keep in mind it is from a more recent generation of service handguns. Comparing these two, would have been like comparing the M1911A1 to the Walther P.38 half a century ago. The fact remains, the Glock G17 was simply not ready when the XM9 trials were held; and even if it were, the US military was not ready for a polymer framed pistol. Hell, back then it was barely accepting of a frame made of alloy rather than steel.
The M1911A1 is a truely Classic pistol, right up there with the P.08 Luger. Unlike the Luger though, it is still a viable combat weapon today, for certain shooters and in certain situations at least. The SIG P226 is one of the best firearms in its class, and its difficult to find anyone who seriously dislikes it. Pretty much the same can be said for the Glock series. They are all just great service sidearms: reliable, durable, accurate, and none cost a mint to manufacture either. And right there with them all, is the Beretta 92FS/M9. It has its faults and flaws, but so does every other firearm ever dreamed up. Its heavy trigger at least, really can not be blamed on Beretta either. It was neccessary to have it in order to satisfy the milspec for safety and reliable primer ignition of all ammunition types. I do not feel the M1911A1 is superior to the M9, and I do feel it is at least on par with both the P226 and Glock.
the Future of the M9:
Today, the 92FS is one of the most popular handguns in the world. It has seen use by dozens of militaries and hundreds of police departments. The 1951 might have put Pietro Beretta on the International firearms map, but the 92 secured the company's position. It is an incredibly reliable, durable, and accurate handgun. The slide moves as if it is on ballbarings, the controls are instinctive, and it has a simplistic field strip procedure (like most all of Beretta's pistols). This is just personal taste of course, but I appreciate how it handles and shoots. My own examples have never once jammed or otherwise malfunctioned. I have found it to be even more reliable than a Glock or SIG. It is well made, with nice machining and attention to detail, especially for a general issue military sidearm. If you can't tell, it is one of my very favorite pistols of all time.
However, to hear tell in gunshops, online forums, and at gunshows; the 92FS/M9 is a giant piece of shit, that both endangers the shooter directly by flying apart in the hand and by being so unreliable that one is lucky to get more than 2 shots off without a jam. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, people seem to love to hate on the Beretta. So for years, rumours have abounded that the military is going to replace the M9 with something else. Young, modern Mall Ninjas and Tactical Commandos want whatever is the most recent, hottest fad in the firearms community. Older long retired Vets and civilian Arm Chair Commandos though, basically have always wanted a return to the good old Colt M1911A1. And there in lies the problem, much like the public, the branches of the military haven't been able to come together and decide on even a possible replacement for the M9. Hell, they can't even agree on what the requirements for a new sidearm should be. From time to time, a Special Forces unit in one of the services will purchase a small number of handguns, say 500 to 5,000; and often times this is what gets a new rumour going that the entire US military is about to replace the M9. Other times, small studies and limited trials are held, featuring various pistols.
Meanwhile, if one zooms out and looks at the bigger picture, its pretty clear the M9 still has a future with our Armed Forces. In 2009, Beretta made quite a big deal out of announcing the fact that it had just secured a 5 year contract with the US government, which might call for as many as 450,000 new M9 and M9A1 pistols. These pistols were for both domestic use and for use by American overseas Allies. Beretta's 5 year mission to Boldly go where no firearms company has gone before, ends this year,however in 2012, an additional 5 year order was placed for 100,000 more pistols.
Its true that in 2014, the military plans to again examine off the shelf current production pistol designs from half a dozen manufacturers, including Colt, S&W, and even Beretta; but honestly know one could possibly know for sure if what they find will result in any changes. The military has invested so much time, training, and funding into the M9. Switching to a new design would cost substantially more than maintaining the existing one, and for what? Yes, the M9 has faults and failings but if it were total trash, even the US military wouldn't have kept it around for nearly 30 years. The simple truth is, any pistol design will have hidden, unknown faults; which will only come out after being put through the total shit that only the military can dish out oh so well. On top of that, yes many modern 21st century pistol designs are better than the Beretta, which dates back to the 1970s; but are they so much better, so much of a leap ahead that its worth investing millions to re-equip our entire military with them? And if we did conduct another round of testing and trials, it would take years (if not a decade) like it did both in 1910 and 1985. The Beretta 92 was quite advanced in 1975 but it took 10 years for it to be adopted and another 5 for it to be perfected and deployed. So a pistol that is state-of-the-art by today's standards, by the time it was actually fielded several years later, wouldn't be the newest and greatest thing any more. The military could spend millions of dollars and countless manhours today to adopt something that is marginally better than the Beretta, or it could wait until there really is a revolutionary step forward in handgun technology and adopt that pistol instead. Finally, one also has to ask, just how important is the pistol to the average 21st soldier? I am not talking about Special Forces or troops on special assignment, I am talking about just your normal officer or NCO who is issued a pistol as a matter of course.
For soldiers with unique needs or for specific missions, there are other pistols available already such as the SIG Sauer P228 M11 and P226 MK25, the HK MK23 Mod 0, and even the Glock G19. In addition to those modern pistols, both the USMC and Navy retain the good old M1911A1 in their inventories. They do not have many, but when an original one wears out, they do purchase a new one from Colt or Springfield. Just a few years ago, the Marines bought 4,500 from Colt in fact. Still, for most soldiers and in most situations, the M9 with good magazines manages to provide acceptable service. If the soldier needs to attach a laser or light device, there are aftermarket adapters available for the M9, and even the railed M9A1 if there is no other practical solution. There is another benefit of the Beretta. It has been around so long, and used by so many, that virtually every parts and accessories vender offers gear for it. Its no problem to find magazines, sights, holsters, grips, and lasers designed specifically to work with the 92FS/M9.
So in the end, though many wish to replace the thing, none seem to be able to come up with enough justifications to actually do so. The M9 is good enough for now, and the military has indicated that it will remain standard issue until at least 2020. Afterall, they are still buying the things. They stopped buying M1911A1s in 1945, but kept that one as GI for 40 more years. Of course they did have a shit ton of them stock piled up after WWII, so they didn't exactly need more. Maybe in a decade or so, something truely new and advanced will have come along, which can really benefit and protect our soldiers? At the end of the day, that is what its all about too. Its not about which we as individuals like more, be it the Glock or M&P or Beretta or even the M1911A1; its about giving our soldiers the best gear, but balanced against the costs. Don't forget where those millions of dollars the military spends comes from. Its ultimately tax payer money. The government bean counters shouldn't have the run of things, but some more actual fiscal responsibility and spending restraint within our government (including our military) would honestly be a welcome change.
So I say hold off on totally replacing the M9, and only re-equip a few troops with more modern off the shelf designs as needed. Do this until the millions it would cost to select and field a new service sidearm are truely justified. Look at the M9 vs. the M1911A1. The M1911 has many virtues and is even better than the M9 in some areas, but the M9 is clearly a more advanced design, generationally speaking. We need to wait until we can make that kind of technological leap forward, before moving to a completely new GI sidearm. As to those who think we should just go back to the M1911A1, as our GI sidearm, I can only say that's a truely stupid idea. It also shows a lack of understanding of our modern military, its missions, and the abilities of its soldiers. Yes, in some situations, the M1911A1 is the right tool for the job, but those are in the minority today. Its like a specialized star headed screw driver; great and even required for removing one type of screw. The M9 is more like a flathead screw driver. Its not especially great at any one thing (and you sure can't use it to remove that special star head screw), but damn is it useful for general work. Really what most like about the M1911A1 is its .45 ACP cartridge. The US military just isn't going to go back to it again, forget about it. Having a GI handgun that uses the NATO standard round is very important at the strategic level. This is also why something like .40 S&W won't become the US military's new service cartridge either, at least not until the rest of NATO also moves away from 9mm. That doesn't look likely either, because much like the M9 itself, 9mm NATO is a good enough round for now. It may not have quite the knockdown power of the big-old .45 ACP, but on the other hand it is lighter so soldiers can carry more, it has less felt recoil so its easier for novices to use effectively, and because its smaller more can be squeezed into a magazine. Finally, if we replaced the Beretta M9 and 9mm NATO, what would all those gunshop, forums, and gunshow people have to bitch about then? I tell you what they'd do, they'd start complaining about the new service pistol. Probably even before more than 10,000 were in the field. Hell probably the same day the new adoption was announced! And you know what else? then the Beretta M9 would slowly but surely start to become the best thing ever in the minds of the shooting public. The M1911A1 had more than its share of critics and complaints surrounding it too; especially in Korea and Vietnam. It wasn't until it was being replaced that so many civilians started to treat it like it was firearms perfection. What happened was when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994, single stack low cap pistols like the M1911A1 went from being moderately popular, to extremely so. In the 1970s and 1980s, so called 'Wonder 9s' were all the rage, with their double stack high capacity magazines. Since the AWB limited civilian handguns to either preban magazines or low-cap 10 rounders, most felt that if they couldn't have lots of shots, they might as well have powerful ones. I lived through that era. I can recall the shift from one style to the other. Of course, that is only one factor too.
For now, it sure looks as if the Beretta M9 will remain the US military's standard service sidearm, for at least another combat generation. Just as a side note, after a decade of developing and testing possible replacements for the Colt M4 and M16A4, just last year the military announced it would update the rifles it already has and not adopt a wholey new platform. I suspect we will see something rather similar happen with the M9.
M9 Specifications:
Service: 1985-1990 limited service for evaluation and improvement, 1990-On going as standard issue
Number in US Military: 1,000,000 (projected number by 2015)
weight: 2 lb 2 oz (original all metal version) 2 lb 1 oz (current version with polymer parts)
length: 8.5"
barrel: 4.9"
Operating System Double/Single Action, Automatic Pistol,
Safety: Slide mounted manual with automatic decocker, Internal automatic firing pin block, Loaded chamber indicator,
Sights: Bar & Dot Style
Cartridge: 9mm NATO
Capacity: 15 rounds standard (17, 20, & 30 extended available)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)