Wow, I really like something beretta made....

[k9870]

I wonder if and when .45acp pistols will be back and replacing the beretta.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by k9870

I wonder if and when .45acp pistols will be back and replacing the beretta.

Or Beretta could make a .45 pistol...

[k9870]

They do, the px4, and it entered the joint pistol trials before they were canceled. I like the FNP 45, which was also enetered.

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

Or Beretta could make a .45 pistol...

[Yournamehere]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

According to the source below, the P226 was actually a little more than two dollars cheaper per pistol, but the overall package price, which included spares and mags, cost much more than the Beretta 92F.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8Rx...%20xm9&f=false

Good use of a source. I knew that including mags and parts that Beretta won by cost, but I didn't know that with just the guns, the SIG was cheaper per unit. I wonder why SIGs are generally more expensive then.

While we're on the subject, I was also under the impression that Beretta also decided in favor of having a manufacturing facility in the U.S. whereas SIG did not at the time. This is of course why there are both USA and Italian made Berettas on the market. On the subject of magazines, Beretta was able to cut the overall costs by rejecting the Mec Gars they were going to include, and switching to magazines made by two companies called Check-Mate and Airtronics. Sadly enough, the magazines were finished poorly and included relatively weak springs and as a result made the M9s less than reliable guns. After 2006, Check-Mate changed the finishing from it's initial rough parkerizing to a spray on type finish to reduce friction in the mags, and they may or may not have changed the spring specs. I got one with my 92SB, and comparing the spring tension side by side with a relatively new factory magazine, I could find no strength difference.

[k9870]

The phosphate coated m9 mags were stupid, they coated the inside with phosphate too, good thing they did phase those out.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

Good use of a source. I knew that including mags and parts that Beretta won by cost, but I didn't know that with just the guns, the SIG was cheaper per unit. I wonder why SIGs are generally more expensive then.

While we're on the subject, I was also under the impression that Beretta also decided in favor of having a manufacturing facility in the U.S. whereas SIG did not at the time. This is of course why there are both USA and Italian made Berettas on the market. On the subject of magazines, Beretta was able to cut the overall costs by rejecting the Mec Gars they were going to include, and switching to magazines made by two companies called Check-Mate and Airtronics. Sadly enough, the magazines were finished poorly and included relatively weak springs and as a result made the M9s less than reliable guns. After 2006, Check-Mate changed the finishing from it's initial rough parkerizing to a spray on type finish to reduce friction in the mags, and they may or may not have changed the spring specs. I got one with my 92SB, and comparing the spring tension side by side with a relatively new factory magazine, I could find no strength difference.

There's a link to the original GAO report below, if you feel like plowing through a dry government report.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=20529

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by k9870

I didnt say it sucks, i said everybody at the range has one and i like to be unique.

That doesn't seem like a good reason to buy a particular weapon, let alone bring it to the range. I go to ranges to shoot and have fun; I could care less if my gun makes me stand out or not.

Actually, sometimes I think I'm mostly unique because of how "bare bones" my AR is compared to those of everyone else - I shoot a stock DPMS Panther that looks like a military M4, has a vertical grip and no other accessories, and iron sights only. Everyone else has after-market camo pattern furniture, different brands of scopes, and tons of shit they don't need hanging off their RIS forearms. And they don't even shoot that well.

Originally Posted by k9870

Also, it tends people always say "insert new age rifle here" isnt worth looking at since we already have ar-15s, like if theres something that works ok we dont need more options. Theres variety for a reason, not everybody wants the same thing.

No, not everyone wants the same thing, but wanting difference for its own sake is not a good reason for variety.

There is also nothing "conformist" about preferring a proven weapons system over a hyped-up weapon that is unproven. Unless you think there's something wrong with all the people who would rather own/shoot modernized 1911s than purchase the latest polymer-framed .45 pistol.