Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: The replacement for the 1911A1 in the US Army
Message-ID: <12814@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Jan 90 04:08:33 GMT
References: <12753@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling)

Yes, the new Army service side arm is the Beretta 92F.  Grip
circumference of the Beretta is larger than that of the Colt
Government Model, but I've uniformly heard its a comfortable shooter.
Good pistol ergonomics go beyond just grip diameter to include grip
contour, grip texture, pistol balance and recoil characteristics.

Now I have a question: what were the selection criteria for the
service sidearm that favored the Beretta? I know caliber, cost and
capacity entered into it. But if the factors of weight, reliability
and simplicity of use were also important, why was the Glock 17
not chosen? I believe Glock has, or is planning to, open a factory
in the States, so availability isn't an issue. I would image that,
especially for a gun with so little machining and so few parts as
the Glock, that large volumes translate to far less cost to the DoD.
Was it the polymer components that put off traditionalists? Or did
the Army want something heavy enough to double as a club :-)?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Sprattling                           DialCom:  8*833-7054

sprattlingrl@crd.ge.com	                 rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com
uunet!crd.ge.com!sprattlingrl

You can appreciate the difference between dedication and commitment
whenever you see a plate of ham and eggs: The hen was dedicated. The
pig was committed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------