Joint Service Small Arms Program: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Added a internal link
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App select source
Line 126:
Out of the eight submitted entries, only the [[Beretta 92|Beretta 92SB-F]] and the [[SIG Sauer P226]] were found "technically acceptable finalists". [[Steyr]]'s [[Steyr GB|GB pistol]] was the first design to be rejected by Army on May 4, due to reliability issues. Subsequently, both [[Fabrique Nationale Herstal]] and [[Colt Manufacturing Company]] would voluntarily withdraw their entries, with the former on May 31 and the latter on July 18. On September 18, 1984, the submissions by [[Carl Walther GmbH|Carl Walther Waffenfabrik]], [[Heckler & Koch]] and [[Smith & Wesson]] were all terminated. The P88 was terminated for failing drop test, dispersion, corrosion resistance, and adverse conditions requirements. The P7M13 was terminated for failing reliability and corrosion resistance requirements and the 459M for failing service life and firing pin energy requirements.<ref>Legislation and National Security Subcommittee (1986); Page 15.</ref>
 
In both trials where the [[Beretta 92SB-F]] and [[SIG Sauer P226]] competed the SIG was either equal or superior to the Beretta in most tests.<ref name="Future Weapons">{{cite book|last1=Dockery|first1=Kevin|title=Future Weapons|date=2007-12-04|publisher=Berkley; Reprint edition|isbn=978-0425217504}}</ref> The purchase price for the Beretta M9 handgun was [[United States dollar|US$]]178.50 per unit.<ref name="Future Weapons"/>
 
The P226 lost out in the final bidding and the Beretta emerging the winning design once again. On January 14, 1985, the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] and the [[United States Army|Army]] announced that the five-year contract would be awarded to Beretta, with the Beretta 92SB-F subsequently adopted as the [[M9 pistol]].<ref name=ThompsonXM9/><ref>Legislation and National Security Subcommittee (1986); Page 112.</ref>