Posts
I have recently read that the M&P series of pistols are inferior to the Beretta M9 because the M9 met a military standard.
Ugh!
I hate this line of thinking.
Did you know that the time tested and proven Glock 17 does not measure up to the M9 standard?
Shocking! I know!
You see, the M9 standard requires a second strike capability should you get a click when you pull the trigger. That means it had to be a double action. The Glock 17 isn't double action.
It's amusing to use a military standard to justify the merits of a design here because the Glock 17 was adopted by Austria in 1980 as the P.80. I should wonder if the Beretta was submitted to the Austrian army trials and failed...
Likewise, the M9 which met the standard in 1985 doesn't meet the standard for the M17.
So, why tout the standard?
Does a failure to meet the M9 specification mean a pistol is bad?
Probably not.
Does meeting a military specification make a pistol better?
Not necessarily.
Some specifications are tailored very narrowly. Some so narrow that only a single specific item meets the specification.
Lawsuits are filed over this kind of thing.
Oh, that 'military standard' and 'military grade' stuff gets me laughing and cursing so much. So... the weapon is designed to be used by functional idiots who eat crayons and can literally break a tank just by driving it. Meanwhile, civilian grade requires better finish, better materials, better ergonomics, often a far superior round and loading system.
ReplyDeleteBwahahahaaha. 'Military grade' and 'military standard' also include some gawd-aweful pieces of garbage that have managed to make money for someone.