Color me... baffled. 92F vs. Hi-Power two great 9mm pistols

[gunnutery]

one very odd stoppage where the slide locked open with a round still in the magazine.

I've had that happen too. I'm pretty sure it's not limp wrist though. I've noticed it happened in an aftermarket magazine, but couldn't really explain why it happened. I've always had a good firm high grip on mine.

I've got the same add-on rail as the one in the OP as well and it's my "night-stand" go to for bumps in the night.

 

[johnmcl]

The answer is complex.

Clearly the USG was after a double action side arm in 9mm, which immediately took out the Hi-Power. I also think that the production capacity of FN was in question. As I remember, the initial purchase and subsequent acquisitions were in the hundreds of thousands of pistols. Perhaps FN's ability to deliver such large numbers came into question. The Brits had been using this gun for decades, so perhaps their opinion as sought out by the selection board had an impact.

And then there's cost, the end driver.

In the end, the collision of cost, delivery schedule, and functional performance is what drove the end solution. That and politics.

As noted earlier in this thread, the BHP though is an elegant weapon, for a more civilized age.

 

[David E]

If the SA trigger has ANY creep, it's broken or been fiddled with. 92 trigger has NO creep.

He probably meant pre-travel.

 

[mattk]

I love the BHP. Its had an outstanding run as a service pistol. Mostly its Bern replaced for lawyerly reason(single action) or in favor of a large caliber. I don't think anyone ever complained about reliability with the HP.
John McL, I used that line from Star Wars to describe my blued BHP to a coworker this morning

 

[IBEWBULL]

I will choose a HP over the club like 92 any time.
The HP shines as a service weapon and concealed carry too.
What else can you ask for ?
Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[dogtown tom]

johnmcl ..... I also think that the production capacity of FN was in question. As I remember, the initial purchase and subsequent acquisitions were in the hundreds of thousands of pistols. Perhaps FN's ability to deliver such large numbers came into question.

Whut? Not hardly, not remotely, not even close.
FN may be the biggest small arms manufacturer in the world.

The Brits had been using this gun for decades, so perhaps their opinion as sought out by the selection board had an impact.

Well, since the Brits continued to issue the Hi Power until the adoption of the Glock 17 last year I'm sure they have been pretty delighted with the BHP.

 

[Schlegel]

No matter how great the HP ( and I think it's pretty great) as stated before, the trials that the M9 won specified a DA initial pull. No need to think there was any other reason necessary to exclude it, nothing "wrong" with the gun or FN.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Anyone remember the talk about U.S. bases in Italy being a factor in the decision to choose the Beretta? It has been a while so I don't remember if this was ever really a factor in the decision. IIRC it was dismissed as erroneous rumor, but it is easy to believe politicians and generals could accept less than the best good enough pistols as a triviality in comparison to overseas bases and what you can do on them.

 

[tipoc]

There were several years of testing done and several congressional hearings into the complaints about the trials and screaming and gnashing of teeth. S&W cried Colt bribed, etc. There were rumors of political deals and NATO and Italy and a bunch of other things. All, each one proved to be bogus. I repeat that, each had no truth to it except that the number of guns used in the testing was small, so the tests were redone.

Nope the U.S. gun makers had from 1948 to the mid 1980s to come up with a gun the U.S. military asked for and they did not do it. Sig and Beretta did.

At the end of WWII the U.S. Army said it wanted a gun to replace the 1911. They laid out the specifications. The specs looked a lot like the Walther P38. But Congress did not approve the funds so the 1911 stayed. So did the specs for what the Army wanted.

Colt developed the Commander Model with an alloy frame in an effort to hold off the Army's decision. A few years later S&W developed the M39 for the same reasons. SW read the wind.

But by the time the actual change took place neither Colt nor S&W had developed a gun that could outdo the Beretta or Sig in the tests. Simple fact. Ruger did not really try. No conspiracy, just fact. If you know the history of American gun manufacturing, or American manufacturing at all, that should not surprise anyone.

tipoc

 

[jjones45]

Hi power is a 9mm masterpiece IMHO. One of the best guns of all time

 

[Nom de Forum]

tipoc, thanks for refreshing my memory. As I said earlier, it is too bad the decision to adopt was not delayed 5 more years until more favorable conditions existed for choosing a pistol.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Tipoc, don't forget, the specs WERE rewritten a bit to specify the double column magazine, and probably a few other specs, as the high capacity magazine was not on the 1948 order. And by the time they got around to moving on the late trials, I believe the S&W and Ruger P series were around, too. However, I think last minute politics may have excluded some of the contenders.

 

[Esoxchaser]

I think all the variants of the 92 are fine pistols. But I reserve them for range use. The safety/decocker is counter intuitive for me, and I actually have to think about what I am doing when using one, as opposed to 1911's and Sig DA/SA's, where my hands just naturally do the right thing without me looking or thinking.

 

[holdencm9]

Never fired a hi-power. They do feel nice but not as nice as a 1911 IMO. However I am in the camp of those who think the 92FS is a fine pistol that would be great as a range or duty weapon. Is it large? Yes. But I don't carry it. I also don't have abnormally large hands and it fits great. Many women I know have enjoyed it as well, although I can see how some with short fingers may have issues.

Also the trigger is great, I think most people's complaints are about the DA trigger, which can be improved with the D-spring. I think the SA trigger pull is nice out of the box though.

 

[Torian]

I've owned both a HP and 92, carried the M9 as a duty weapon in multiple combat zones. I have large hands and prefer the HP in EVERY respect.

I sold the 92 a year after I bought it...HP is still my primary carry 10 years later.

 

[Tirod]

I have to wonder why the US didn't go with the BHP.

Well, when the dust settled, things sorted out, and the Beretta and SIG were top ranked. They had the features and the design integrity, ie, both companies had been making that style of firearm in large quantities to specification. American makers didn't get that kind of support previously because the US Gov. didn't buy any for a long time. It was all civilian and LEO sales up to that point. No .gov contracts much.

Better to ask why Beretta over SIG? Consider - the military gets one firearm for use by a number of troops who carry them in figurehead positions and very little combat action. The other group - CID, NCIS, USCG, OSI, SEALS - gets to use a pistol in daily carry as a duty gun where it's important.

Another aspect - whether it did or didn't happen is moot - Italy has a number of our bases on it's soil, including a parachute regiment and refueling station for the Mediterranean fleet. It was rumored at the time by military sources in the know that the Italian government did use some back channels to point out our dependency.

What I find interesting about all the gnashing of teeth is the angst that Beretta was ever chosen - when the reality is that the Armed Forces don't use pistols to any great degree at all. The primary weapon is the M16 and it's variants. Pistols are a sideshow for the MP and Officers when they are not in a combat zone. Even the Marine Corp requires the M16/M4 as the issue weapon up to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

If you are in combat arms on hostile ground having a pistol alone is ranked as being in a bad tactical situation. The rifle is preferred - even when raiding Pakistani penthouses. Pistols are a worst case backup when the rifle somehow meets an unfortunate malfunction that prevents immediate remediation. It's an OMG moment - and few want to be stuck with just a pistol right then.

Better than nothing and it fits when working non combat life when a symbol of authority is it's biggest job. The Beretta gets that job done, and the users with an actual real world need get the SIG.

I have no problems with that. I once owned a 92F working Rent a Cop years ago, now I have a SIG as a compact CCW. One for show, the other for go. Of course, the primary is a AR15.

Each has it's place, don't get worked up about it. The right decisions were made and the guns were assigned as they were needed. It's all good.

 

[deejai]

Again, the there was a double action variant of the Hi power called the HPDA submitted to the JSSAP trials. It was voluntarily withdrawn from the competition by FN. Presumably for reliability issues.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Is it even POSSIBLE that the Beretta beat the SIG fair and square at the time? Stranger things have happened.

 

[SFsc616171]

As I come from the Viet Vet generation, single action, with a positive verifiable cock and lock, is the norm. The other parts of the world that did not have the 1911, had the BHP. The saying was, 'Anyone who carried a BHP, knew how to employ it best.' I shot Junior NRA with a 1911, with the original GI sights. My first BHP I bought was a MK II, with the same GI sights. My newer one, some folks hate, because it is a MARPAT coated Mk III, with the 3 dots.

I've seen Berettas. Even as a pot-metal copy for Mattel caps, they are ugly, and this 'rail-thing' just compounds that.

I am of the opinion that, the U.S. military forces had to "go NATO-standardization", and no more be American-ONLY, as did the aerospace ontractors had to "go NATO-standardization", by now, following those ISO regulations, instead of being ALL-AMERICAN.

 

[JTQ]

Beretta vs SIG.

I often wonder if people have short memories. We now think of the SIG design as having been around forever, but the SIG P220 had only been around for about 5 years at the time of the tests. It was a European gun and not common in the US. The SIG P226 was specifically created for the test, so it was a brand new pistol.

A few things about the SIG that would have been tough to swallow for the military that was transitioning from the 1911.

- The SIG had no safety. Not a big deal now, with 30 years of decocker only SIGs and years of Glocks, XD's, and M&P's with no safety or even decockers behind us, but at the time practically no semi-auto pistol came without a manual safety.
- The operation of the SIG decocker was/is unique. We're used to the SIG decocker now, but at the time it was a very different concept. Heck, other than some odd copies, SIG is still the only major maker using that style of decocker.
- A stamped slide with a pinned in breach face. This was a new gun with what was no doubt odd construction for the US military to consider. There really was no track record to prove this construction technique would be durable.
- Cost was another factor. The SIG cost more than the Beretta, and still cost a good $200 more than the Beretta does today.

The Beretta was basically the same as the Walther P38, a well proven design and similar to the S&W autos very common in use by law enforcement at the time. While all the guys who have grown up on Glocks and M&P currently find the Beretta safety/decocker an odd duck now, it was a very common design at the time and the operation would have been very familiar to most gun users at the time.

I'm not surprised Beretta beat the SIG. I'm surprised the choice was close. I'm not saying the Beretta is better than the SIG, but at the time of the tests, the Beretta was probably a safer choice, especially when you are dropping an iconic firearm like the 1911. Thinking too far outside the box could have been a risky bet. I'm surprised S&W couldn't put out a competitive pistol at the time. Ruger wasn't ready with their P85, and even when they did release it to the commercial market it still wasn't ready which is why we got the P89.

It was mentioned a 5 year delay may have changed the outcome. Possibly. It may have tilted in favor of the SIG, but if the suggestion is a 5 year delay would have given us the Glock, I don't think so. A 10 year delay in the trials may have given the Glock a win, but with a 5 year delay in the trials, the Glock still would have been too new and radical in design for a win.

If trials were held today, the Beretta would probably fall behind several other guns, including the SIG, Glock, M&P, HK, XD, etc., but at the time, it was a solid, safe choice.

 

[deejai]

Beretta didn't beat SIG and SIG didn't beat Beretta. The competition was pass or fail. Both guns met the minimum requirement and passed the tests. The adoption came down to pricing alone. The Beretta was more expensive than SIG but it's maintenance package was cheaper, which let Beretta undercut SIGs price.

Who knows what would've happened if we went with SIG. Remember that the P226 today is not the same P226 in 1984. Today's P226 is totally different, it uses MIM parts and has a milled one piece stainless steel slide.

Also, Glock had just came on the market when the competition was going on. They weren't ready to commit to building a factory in the US at the time, which is a stipulation of the contract.

 

[WestKentucky]

Beretta made the 92 good, it the brazilians made it great. Their demand for a frame mounted safety changed the function of the gun in a very good way. I have shot several 9mm from hi point, Jennings, keltec, sig, glock, springfield, s&w, beretta, browning and Taurus. Of the pile the taurus92 was the most appealing by far and it is the only auto handgun I currently own with the exception of an heirloom 22. It shoots well, and is surprisingly good at handling debris and water. It fits me (huge mitts) and my wife (extra small gloves) equally well after handling it for about 5 minutes. It strips easily and quickly which is a plus, and the Taurus has cocked and locked capability, or can be carried hammer at partial cock. It is nearly the most versatile sa/da auto I have ever held in that it can be used as a fighting gun, a survival gun, or as a hunting gun as barrel length allows pretty good velocity. The BHP on the other hand offers...none of that. It's a great pistol, but it certainly was not a good choice at the time the 92 was adopted. It was a few decades behind in technology. One thing the is govt is good at is taking good technology into account when it picks a weapon. This was the case for the m9 it does it all for anybody.

 

[tarosean]

It was mentioned a 5 year delay may have changed the outcome. Possibly. It may have tilted in favor of the SIG, but if the suggestion is a 5 year delay would have given us the Glock, I don't think so. A 10 year delay in the trials may have given the Glock a win, but with a 5 year delay in the trials, the Glock still would have been too new and radical in design for a win.

Doubtful as they still don't have simple stuff like lanyard loops that are part of the spec..

(Well aware it's a simple fix)

 

[JTQ]

WestKentucky wrote,
Beretta made the 92 good, it the brazilians made it great. Their demand for a frame mounted safety changed the function of the gun in a very good way.

Taurus didn't change the gun to put the safety on the frame. The Beretta 92 started out with a frame mounted safety. Beretta moved the safety/decocker to the slide most likely because purchasers wanted it to be like the S&W autos of the day. Taurus just kept the device on the frame where it started out.

 

[Nom de Forum]

...........It was mentioned a 5 year delay may have changed the outcome. Possibly. It may have tilted in favor of the SIG, but if the suggestion is a 5 year delay would have given us the Glock, I don't think so. A 10 year delay in the trials may have given the Glock a win, but with a 5 year delay in the trials, the Glock still would have been too new and radical in design for a win.

If trials were held today, the Beretta would probably fall behind several other guns, including the SIG, Glock, M&P, HK, XD, etc., but at the time, it was a solid, safe choice.

Being the person who mentioned the "5 year delay" here is some elaboration. Five years later the economic situation in the U.S. was much stronger and more favorable to gambling on manufacturing a new design. During those five years the interest, experimentation, and understanding of use of semiautomatic pistols for competition (loosely) based on self-defense scenarios was vastly increased and publicized. This activity was so prevalent that awareness of it would have some influence on even the most out of touch, hidebound, bureaucratic, military minds. This would probably not result in the adoption of a Glock with an added thumb-safety. It may have resulted in a change of specification that would permit a CZ-75 clone or CZ-75 derivative with both condition 1 capability and the additional capability of having a lever permitting on-safe decocking. Remember we already had an example of a U.S. made CZ-75 clone that was a TV star and it only failed to thrive because of bad business practices. A CZ-75 clone or derivative would have eliminated many of the complaints about handling and operating characteristics of the Beretta over the last 30 years. It would not have eliminated the complaints about not being in .45ACP caliber, but it might have reduced them by being easy to convert to .40S&W a few years later.