What's the point of the M9A3 if Beretta isn't going

>>32664822
They were hoping to convince congress that they had a "low cost" alternative to the MHS competition. Everyone, including the Army Chief of Staff thinks that the MHS comp is dumb and a waste of time/money. It shouldn't take this long to chose a fucking COTS handgun

>>32664822
Because when the MHS competition goes nowhere, like the last fifty fucking attempts at replacing the M9, it'll be there as the cheaper COTS solution.

File: 1456106041832.jpg (27KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x500px

>the M9A3 was cheaper too

>>32664822
Not sure op. Go into sportsman's and see it on wall for almost a thousand. Fucking stupid.

>>32664822

>M9 sucks because it doesn't have a rail
>Beretta says "We can fix this!"
>THEY PUT THE RAIL ON THE UNDERSIDE

How retarded can one company be, no one was complaining about the lacking rail because they wanted a fucking laser.

>>32665120
You're telling me the primary complaint among boots issued shitty old M9's is that they don't have rails to mount a RDS?

>>32665143

Most boots complained about "MUH STOPPING POWER" because all boots fall for the "Muh granddaddy's M1911 is the greatest pistol of all time"

Who gives a fuck what boots thinks, I was talking about the complaints about actually gun buyers.

>>32665167
>Beretta should make design alterations based on the requests of a fraction of civilian customers instead of the requests of the customer looking to sign a US military-sized purchase contract

>>32665228

Like the military gives a fuck anyways, if they buy, they'll buy irregardless of the features.

Beretta might as well improve the chances of civilians sales, given the Army's looking to dump them and the Navy's still on the fence.

>>32664822
I'm H8 so this is my sidearm when doing recovery. :(

>>32665242
>Incorporating design features that fit the needs of the massive potential contract customer does not increase the chances of securing said contract
>There is no reason to pay attention to what the potential customer wants because whether or not they purchase is based on chance. If they buy, they'll buy it regardless if it's what they want

>>32665280

Yes

>>32664822
>Le fat grips upside down safety is now dildo colored

Top lol.

>>32665287
Alright my dude, I have no rebuttal for that. If you want an RDS why not get a slide cut like any other pistol?

File: M9A3 2.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

The M9A3 is great. It's basically there because Beretta wanted to stop the MHS by offering the M9A3 at the same price as the M9, but the higher ups wouldn't settle for another M9.

In the end, the M9A3 will likely be adopted because the MHS will come up inconclusive like any attempt to replace the M4.

>>32665575
Face it. the M9A3 will get cucked by daddy 1911

>>32665575
>In the end, the M9A3 will likely be adopted

You don't keep up with the news, do you? M9A3 was rejected a long time ago

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/01/13/army-passes-berettas-proposed-m9a3/

>>32665228

bureaucrats who don't carry a gun are the "customers" for military contracts, not the 18 year old welfare queens who carry it

>>32665120
Where else do you put a rail on a handgun?

>>32665228
The self propelled sandbags on the ground don't get any say in the matter, retard.

>>32666442

On top so you can put on a sniper scope, dumbass.

File: tmp_30877-IMG_20170104_143137-2079805347.jpg (294KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1080x1080px

>>32664822
The point was to offer an alternative to the MHS, not win the competition.

Yes, the certainly are. I have a 96 Vertec that I have made a few changes on (caliber swap, decocker only, etc), and in the final analysis it would have been more cost effective to get the m9a3.

>Old pic before decocker

>>32664822
I got one because I'll drunk buy anything, but if I'm dead honest I don't really see shit about it that really warrants the price tag vs a baseline m9. If it was in the 5-600$ range maybe, but if memory serves it was 800$.

File: raiden.png (164KB, 405x750px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 405x750px

>>32664822
Who cares?

MHS program has been in a stall for a while and the military is probably going to end up just buying more of the older M9.

Just replace it with a glock 19 and be done with it

File: tmp_4216-24pjjna-1558714481.gif (2MB, 700x465px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x465px

>>32665120
Not that you aren't a fucking idiot, but optic mounts for Berettas are old as fuck

>>32665811
You know it's never been legitimately submitted right? All they have to do is wait until the current stock of M9s are due for replacement rather than win some new bullshit contest

>>32666538
>I don't really see shit about it that really warrants the price tag vs a baseline m9.

You mean all the features that you literally cannot get for a lower price unless you only want one or two of them? Are you aware of the actual differences?

>>32667155
this

>>32665811
The M9A3 was rejected in the same way that the M4 was rejected because "WE NEED A NEW WEAPON!"

When it comes down to it, the budget isn't going to allow them to adopt a new handgun so they'll call the results inconclusive and go back to the M9, which will then become the M9A3 because they'd be fucking retarded to carry out the contract on the original M9 rather than upgrade to the M9A3 at literally the same unit cost.

>>32664822

>gun so unreliable they had to cut away the top of the slide

Just get a fucking glock already. They didn't fuck up and it's still lighter.

>>32668472
Fuddlore.

>>32668255

If this actually happens I'd lose all faith in the Army to work as a simple organization and I'd pray that all business decisions are taken from the welfare queens and given over to sensible civilians.

They've literally wasted millions on this shit

>>32664822
I love the way it looks and want one but poor guy.

File: FN5701.jpg (429KB, 1737x1179px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1737x1179px

>>32664822

Still don't understand why the military hasn't bought the objectively best service sidearm