Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: mayse@cs.uiuc.edu (Chip Mayse) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Beretta 92F vs. M1911A1 Message-ID: <12887@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 8 Jan 90 05:11:28 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 25 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Chip Mayse Someone (OK, Anthony Lee at U. of Queensland) asked what the advantage of the Beretta would be over the venerable M1911. Obviously the 9mm round used by the Beretta is flatter-shooting than the old .45; I've stood behind shooters using .45's in pistol matches, and the bullets in flight were easy to see, describing trajectories not much flatter than that of a well-thrown rock or a good slingshot. These were target loads, possibly weaker than standard ball cartridges. However, ballistics probably aren't a major concern in a sidearm load, given that the major problem with pistols is hitting the target at all. I recall hearing that the Army wanted to adopt a new pistol that would fire a NATO-standard cartridge, as the M-14 and M-16 do, and that the 9mm widely used in Europe is a good choice from this standpoint. I don't know whether it's the same as the 9mm Parabellum used (I think) in old German military pistols such as the Luger and the Walther P-38. I've seen some 9mm cartridges which weren't that long. Chip Mayse cmayse@ncsa.uiuc.edu [mod.note: 9mm NATO is 9x19mm Parabellum, or 9mm Luger. .380-cal is a shorter cartridge 9mm. - Bill ]