Army to buy 15,778 new Beretta 92FS pistols for Afghan troops

From the press release dated 30 September …

The US Army announced today that Beretta U.S.A. has been awarded a purchase order for 15,778 new Beretta 92FS pistols and cleaning kits. Delivery of the pistols will begin in 60 days and will proceed at a rate of 2,000 pistols per month.

“This order reminds us that Beretta 9mm pistols remain a central part of the American arsenal,” commented Jeff Reh, Vice-General Manager for Beretta U.S.A. “These particular pistols are being supplied as part of the U.S. Army Foreign Military Sales program in aid to Afghan troops and to assist other U.S. allies around the world.”

[ Many thanks to Lance for emailing me the link. ]

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • 18D

    This is freakin’ sad. The Army needs to get rid of this thing now! Our soldiers have a really hard time shooting this thing.

    • William O. B’Livion

      My 5’3 inch, stubby fingered WIFE can shoot my 92fs just fine. So can almost all the women in the St. Louis Police Department (for values of “fine” that are on par with most police agencies).

      I have put 5 or 6k rounds through mine, and if you were going to kick my former-marine ass out of a C-130 over any war zone in the world it would be my second choice (after Glock) of a firearm to carry.

  • SpudGun

    Even though the Beretta has been in service with the US Military for 20 years and the vast majority of service men and women are pretty happy with it and more importantly, that this latest batch of pistols isn’t for American troops, I hope someone spouts the usual knee jerk stuff about the 1911.

    That would be unexpectedly neato.

    • Sid


      I sure wish the US Army would go back to the 1911.

      • John

        the vast majority of service men and women are pretty happy with it

        The vast majority are not issued it. Of the minority who are issued M9s, many are not shooters (i.e.: People who go out and shoot on their own dime). They only shoot at the bi-annual qualifications.

        Those that do have a choice in their personal side arm tend to carry something else. I’ll rephrase that, THOSE THAT HAVE A CHOICE DO NOT CARRY THE M9. Sigs, Glocks, 1911s or H&Ks, but not M9s.

        I understand Painted Para Ordanance does a land office business in commerative 1911s for deployed army units. The second most popular is Sig.

      • John

        Adjust fire over.

        Sid, ment to reply to Spudgun.

  • John

    Foreign Military Sales

    NOT for the U.S. Army.

  • armed_partisan

    Yes, but I’m sure they plan to adopt a .45 ACP or .40 S&W pistol very soon. Not.

  • Lance

    For 9mm its a good pistol when you lube it. The M-9 isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

    • David/Sharpie

      I’ve talked to an (Active Duty) Marine Police officer who’s served in Iraq and had to kill an insurgent with the M9, he wasn’t impressed with it’s lethality. But like when buying a house, it’s all about “Location, Location, Location”

  • charles222

    Are these the new M9A1s?

    • charles222, I don’t think so.

    • Josh

      I’m fairly certain that the civilian designation for the M9A1 is the Beretta 92A1. The big cosmetic difference being that the M9A1/92A1 has an accessory rail on the front. The 92FS is still just identical to the M9, as far as I can tell.

      Edit: I just noticed in looking at them again that the 92A1 is a little more different than at first glance. It has a rounded trigger guard (Beretta says that is to conform to current pistol gripping practices…?), and has a 17+1 capacity in 9mm instead of 15+1.

      I still stand by my initial thought that if these are 92FS pistols, they’re not the same thing as the new M9A1.

  • Lance

    Yes but the Army is still receiving M-9s from the massive 2009 million dollar contract that wont expire till 2014. The USMC is the current user of the M-9A1. The military has no funds for any new pistol or pistol programs.

  • Westczek

    What happened to all the S&W Sigmas the US bought for the Afghans? I wonder if these are replacing the Sigmas or just for a special group of Afghan military?

  • Burst

    Whatever problems the future holds for Afghanistan, I don’t see them being solved with more pistols.

    Guess I’m just bleak like that.

    • William O. B’Livion

      The military’s job isn’t to solve the problem but to buy the politicians and the people time to solve it themselves.

      Unfortunately instead of having our general values–respect for human life and self determination, government transparency and integrity etc. I fear their values–corruption, etc.–are rubbing off on us.

  • G3Ken

    Why are we BUYING ANY guns for these illiterate turds. They’ll just end up being sold or used against us in the hands of the Taliban.

    Didn’t know we gave them Sigma’s. That’s better. I had one of those pieces of s**t ( in .40 cal) and it rarely fired more than one or two rounds before stovepiping or having a different type of FTF. I traded it (and some of my hard-earned money) to a gun shop and got an HK USP40. THAT gun would shoot anything up to and including cigarette butts. Never had ONE FTF with that gun. My only complaint is that while I have a large palm, my fingers are a bit short for my hand size.

    I had gone into the shop originally intending to buy the H&K, but the Sigma fit me so much better. Too bad it sucked. My son said I find the H & K grip odd because my hand is “like a Christmas ham with five sausages attached to it”. &^%$* kids! Try to raise ’em right, and they still break your balls.

  • subase

    A little weird. Iraqi security forces got 125,163 Glock pistols. Maybe this time they are trying to save money with this 92FS pistol.

  • Lance


    The Glocks where for Iraqi Police and Air Force the Iraqis and now the Afghans are buying 92FSs to be compatible with US weapons and the current order is for Afghanistan NOT Iraq.

  • subase

    It’s a good choice. The Glock is too much of a clock that never fails and the Afghans may take it’s reliability for granted, encouraging further neglect of their weapons and their safe handling. The 92FS will require more regular maintenance and they have a external frame safety, enabling Afghan’s to be berated and disciplined if they neglect either. Realistically though, no doubt they are just saving money through training. The Afghans possessing the same pistol as the the U.S military is probably a morale booster too.

    Also read online, that due the ubiquity of AK’s in Afghanistan, people actually fear pistols more than rifles. A pistol is viewed as a more personal weapon for executions, so whenever one is presented, they fear someones about to get popped in the head.

  • Lance

    I’ve Shot my 92FS for years and its my duty weapon I wouldn’t trade it for any Glock.

  • Ron

    Nice to see our tax money going to good use (sic) What a waste of money when is this ever going to stop !!!