Beretta Lands Army and Navy Contracts for M9 Pistols

[Ed Ely]

September 10, 2007

Accokeek, Maryland - Beretta U.S.A. Corp. announced today the receipt of purchase orders from the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy for a total of 10,576 M9 pistols (5,969 for the Army, 4,607 for the Navy). The purchase orders were issued against a multi-year contract between Beretta U.S.A. and the U.S. Army, which serves as executive purchasing agent of the M9 pistol for all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.

"We are always honored to be given the opportunity to serve the U.S. Armed Forces by supplying the Beretta M9 pistol," noted Jeff Reh, Vice-General Manager for Beretta U.S.A. Corp. "The Beretta M9 pistol remains the most reliable and well-tested handgun in the U.S. military inventory, with tests resulting in an average of only one malfunction every 20,500 rounds fired." Beretta U.S.A. Corp., manufacturer of the Beretta M9 pistol, employs over 330 employees and manufactures the sidearm at its factory in Accokeek, Maryland.

Beretta U.S.A. Corp. has supplied the Beretta M9 pistol as the standard sidearm for the U.S. Armed Forces since 1985.

In 2005, Beretta U.S.A. Corp. received 13 contracts for M9 pistols and component parts from the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps. Many of the U.S. Army contracts were multi-year contracts lasting five years, from which over 31 million dollars in purchase orders have since been issued to Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

Beretta, established in 1526, is the oldest industrial dynasty in the world tracing its roots through 16 generations of continuous family ownership. Firearms bearing the Beretta name have been sold for almost 500 years. Beretta USA Corp. was founded in 1977 and supplies the standard sidearm to the U.S. Armed Forces. Today Beretta manufactures, distributes and markets a complete line of firearms, accessories and apparel. Beretta also owns and operates six retail Beretta Gallery stores worldwide. For additional information visit www.berettausa.com.

Media Contact:
Karen Lutto (830) 755-4308 karen@luttopr.com or Kimi Herndon (804) 346-4309 kimi@luttopr.com

FYI

Ed

[DMWyatt]

Hmm I don't really know what to say. On one hand I'd love to see the .45 back in service, but on the other I don't have any real criticism of beretta except that the grip is too wide for what it is. I'd love to hate hearing this, but I really can't swing myself to feel one way or another about this.

[KarolinaKid]

10,576 does not sound like that many pistols in the grand scheme of things, especially over a length of years and 2 different branches.

[cougar_guy04]

Originally Posted by KarolinaKid

10,576 does not sound like that many pistols in the grand scheme of things, especially over a length of years and 2 different branches.

That's just for this current contract, if I read it right.

[nikon777]

Meh, they shoulda with with MP 45's.

[jeepinbanditrider]

Good god we are never going to be rid of those POSes.

[Brickboy240]

Sorry, but I did not find the M9 to be all that bad.

On the M9s plus side: it is very reliable, it has very low recoil, it has a long sight radius, it is fairly accurate, it is very hard to "limp-wrist jam" a 92/M9 Beretta.

On the M9s bad side: its wide and chunky, the trigger could be better (but its no worse than many d/a 9mms), it is not a CCW piece, the slide mounted safety is hard for those with smaller hands.

Sure, I think the military should have gone with the SIG P226 if they wanted the best d/a 9mm, but you could do MUCH worse than the 92 Beretta.

I have shot several and own a 96 Beretta and have always had positive shooting experiences with this design. In fact, my 96 Beretta is my home defense pistol.

Would I like to see the military go back to the 45? Absolutely, but for a d/a 9mm with a safety (their requirements) if they're not going to splurge on the P226 (the Navy SEALs carry P226s)....the M9 is not a bad choice.

- Brickboy240

[ichy_trigger]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

Sorry, but I did not find the M9 to be all that bad.

On the M9s plus side: it is very reliable, it has very low recoil, it has a long sight radius, it is fairly accurate, it is very hard to "limp-wrist jam" a 92/M9 Beretta.

On the M9s bad side: its wide and chunky, the trigger could be better (but its no worse than many d/a 9mms), it is not a CCW piece, the slide mounted safety is hard for those with smaller hands.

Sure, I think the military should have gone with the SIG P226 if they wanted the best d/a 9mm, but you could do MUCH worse than the 92 Beretta.

I have shot several and own a 96 Beretta and have always had positive shooting experiences with this design. In fact, my 96 Beretta is my home defense pistol.

Would I like to see the military go back to the 45? Absolutely, but for a d/a 9mm with a safety (their requirements) if they're not going to splurge on the P226 (the Navy SEALs carry P226s)....the M9 is not a bad choice.

- Brickboy240

I carried the M9 when I was in the service and I never had issues with it other than its bulk. They will replace it eventually, rmember though that women and those not used to shooting may not control the .45 so well.

[jeepinbanditrider]

Well I will say that I've never heard of anyone that owns a personal one that didn't like it.

Maybe ours are just shot out (USMC Airwing we don't get the best weapons) but I have yet to shoot one of our M9s that shot to POA even at 7 yards. Lots o failure to feeds, ect. I keep even my issue weapons meticulously clean so being dirty isn't the issue.

Maybe if we got some newer M9s it would remedy this problem?

[Brickboy240]

To this day, my old 96 Beretta (basically a 40 caliber M9) has never failed to feed, fire or eject...not once.

Hard to poo poo a pistol that has never given a lick of trouble.

Sure, its not for CCW, but the 96/92/M9 series Berettas have alot going for them. You could do MUCH worse in the hi-cap d/a 9mm department!

- Brickboy240