TargetTalk

GBMaryland wrote:

Steve Swart as Guest wrote: *not sure if MCP copied the Sams or Kidd design or . . . ?

MCP holds a patent on it's design.

Doesn't mean much. Getting a patent is a race to the patent office and it is a long hard legal fight to get one nullified even if the design is stolen/ borrowed or copied. I have been inside some patent lawsuits and it is not a "clean" process. Isabel

A friend of mine ordered an M9 from MCP last year. He's been given several promised delivery dates. None of them met, and he's still waiting.

You should ask the AMU who they had learned from on how to accurize their Beretta's. The USMC is actually calling him to find out and learn about his rail system. He actually finished an order for the AMU to provide his accurized M9's and 1911's. And he did it with no profit at all.

This is not a slam of MCP I am just clearing up some rumors that seem to grow over time. I can say that all the M-9's used by the AMU shooters are accurized in the unit's own shop. The ways for doing this have evolved over the years through trial and error, although there has been info sharing with the Marines at Quantico and others.
I don't know who MCP reportedly completed an order for, but the AMU has never bought anything from MCP.

Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:Hmmm.

The "legend" I heard (circa 1998) was that David Sams did the original design work at the AMU and Tony kid came out with a very similar design right around the same time frame.

So I would have to "Ditto" the lack of durability issue for the M9 vs. the M1911 as far as match grade ball guns.

Steve Swartz

At the time the M-9 was being worked on Tony Kidd and Dave Sams were both at the AMU. Tony, a civilian, was in charge of the section that does bullseye and action shooting guns. Dave Sams was active duty and the senior military guy in the section. So the rail/insert design is the same one, when Sams retired and opened his own shop (samscustomgunworksusa.com) he determined 4 was enough. There are other differences as well, but like in every shop, you do what works best for you, doesn't make the other way wrong.
As for longevity the shooters that have not been 'burnt' in the NTT shoot the M9 all year long, for NRA centerfire as well as service pistol 900's, in practice and in matches. The pistol Hendo used with some success this year was the same one he was assigned and has used since he arrived almost 3 years ago. They do get the pistols inspected and tested every year but once an M-9 is done, maintaining them is no more difficult than their 1911's and barrel life is comparable.

Ahh then that would explain it! I got it 2d or 3rd hand (at best) and my memory probably wasn't clear either.

Thanks for the Info!

Isabel (as guest) wrote:
My friend told me last night that he has fired more than 1000 rounds through his MCP Beretta. Still can't find a combination of ammo, and magazines either reloads or commercial that will reliably feed in gun. Needless to say he is looking for someone else to tweek it. My friend pretty much lost confidence in Dr Nick due to this incident and another one with a .45 that he sent in for work. My David Sams guns all have functioned flawlessly right out of the box. Isabel

I have a friend who was having the same problem with his MCP 92. I gave him 5 each of 2 different reloads and they worked fine, as has my MCP 92. One of his problems was with a 10 rd, mag. Stick with the stock Beretta mag.

I have only fired about 500 rounds through my gun, it has functioned flawlessly.

Jim

Steve Swartz wrote:I checked out the website before your last post, thanks.

1. "Dr." Nick is a chiropractor, right?

Dr. Nick has 2 PhDs, 2 Masters Degrees, and is also a Dr. of Chiropractic.

I've know him for 20 years.

2. What has changed since the 1970s when the "rail system" was universally tried and rejected by all the top teams/shooters? Either 1) rails and slides now are of universally much poorer quality than 1970 or 2) the rail system has improved significanlty over good "old fashoined" hammer forging, CNC machining, and proper fitting. Neither one sounds very likely to me . . . again, maybe the "rail system" of 2008 is radically different from the "rail system" of 1970 but nothing I could find suggested such a radical change.

What's changed, in general, is that MCP is having materials made for them specifically for the task.

Additionally, they take MANY man hours to install the rail systems. What failed in previous attempts is that machinist in question we probably not up to the job.

It costs ALOT of time and money to install rail systems, and you can not be off more than 1 to 2 thousands from one end of the slide to the other. This changes the level of difficulty, and it's my experience that most organizations would rather sell you another pistol.

It's probably not really worth it with 1911s, whereas with 92sf pistols you really don't have a choice.

3. I sincerely hope we are not about to witness the "Tubb Effect*" for BE pistols . . .

Hey look I don't mean to be a buzzkill- whatever makes you feel better about your shooting is worth it- it's fundamentally a mental game, right? And I like the idea of rejecting any barrel that does not shoot a 0.8" group (how many times? under what conditions?). That is a Good Thing (but frankly, no big whoop as both Baer and RRA do the same). And I'm not sure how just focusing on a +- 0.005" tolerance on the hood- one of many critical factors- is Majic but you know.

The proof is always Ransom Rest testing, over time, with ten shot groups (not cherry picked!) etc.

Frankly, none of them do that for a fact.

Nick tests every barrel in a barrel tester and rejects those that don't group under 1 inch at 50 yards.

He also tests his pistols in a ransom rest, with much the same effect.

I've been there and I've asked the questions.

What distingushes him from almost everyone else is that his approach is complete. He's manufacturing almost ALL of his own parts, and he's not just slapping together other peoples parts to make a pistol. (This is what RRA, Springfield, Baer, and such do.)

If his firearms were not basically superior, the MCP team would not have won the National Match (Team) at Camp Perry, and the previous year Team Springfield would have been using their own pistols.

I'm not going to starting telling everyone his manufacturing secrets, but I will tell you that he's now manufacturing his own 1911's from scratch.

He told me, very simply, that the reason other manufacturers are not doing a better job than he is, is because they can't afford the time it takes to produce the parts he's manufacturing. He can afford to run his 4 axis CnC milling machine so slow that his finished product has a run out from one end of the slide or frame that is measured in a few TEN-THOUSANDS!

...but that means that he only makes about 48 pistols a month.

RRA, Baer, Browning, Springfield, etc... they can't afford to tie up their equipment like that. So they are more than happy to settle for runout of a few HUNDREDS.

I will tell you that MCP is employing technology and scientific methods that I doubt anyone else, except for VERY highend military hardware manufacturers, is doing.

GB

nd2ga wrote:

You should ask the AMU who they had learned from on how to accurize their Beretta's. The USMC is actually calling him to find out and learn about his rail system. He actually finished an order for the AMU to provide his accurized M9's and 1911's. And he did it with no profit at all.

This is not a slam of Dr. Nick, actually a very nice guy, I am just clearing up some rumors that seem to grow over time. Having been at the AMU for more than 15 years I can say that all the M-9's used by the AMU shooters are accurized in the unit's own shop. The ways for doing this have evolved over the years through trial and error. There has been quite a bit of back and forth info sharing with the Marines at Quantico. Maybe a little more on that in another post.


I don't know who he had reportedly completed an order for, but the AMU has never bought anything from MCP. There was one item that was in the works but fell through, because he could not deliver the pistol, was a pistol he was to donate to the Interservice Matches as a prize to one of the categories

MCP has been doing the pistol work for many all of the reserve and guard shooting teams.

From a different source, I understand that the AMU copied the MCP design and were quite unhappy when they found out that MCP holds a patent on it.

Oh, and to the person that indicated MCP is a little slow... yeah, that's certainly true. They've been ironing out the kinks in their process... The pistols are great, but the speed... -smile- I guess I'd rather have it done right. Right and fast would be better...

Orpanaut wrote:Champion's Choice is selling the MCP Beretta for about $2200.

For what it's worth, I have a friend who has both a Tony Kidd Beretta and an MCP Beretta and prefers the MCP pistol. Someday I'd like to arrange some range time with him so I can do my own comparison!

Not to hog this thread, but MCP is doing ALOT of extra stuff with their Berretta overhauls and new pistols.

Currently, I don't think any other manufacturer is doing the same kind of work, or even has the parts.

There are at least 5 manjor parts that they are making in their shop for the 92sf, and I know that if there was a compariable parts they'd just buy them and use them.

If you put an MCP Berretta in your hand you're going to notice its heavier and it's properly balanced.

From a different source, I understand that the AMU copied the MCP design and were quite unhappy when they found out that MCP holds a patent on it.

Why would the AMU be concerned about patents?

jomimbi wrote:

From a different source, I understand that the AMU copied the MCP design and were quite unhappy when they found out that MCP holds a patent on it.

Why would the AMU be concerned about patents?

The answer is they wouldn't be. Patents are only of interest to someone making commercial items for sale and patent infrigment is usually a big bucks endevor with one commercial enterprise suing another. It has got to be pretty major to even be worth your time. In addition if you have patented something that is in common use by other gunsmiths prior to the time that you applied for a patent, you risk being thrown out of court if you sue to enforce it. Court is where you prove whether your patent is enforceable or not.
The AMU is not a commercial enterprise and is not offering any products for sale so anyone suing them for patent infrigement ( a very expensive proposition) would have no case. Isabel

Isabel1130 wrote:

jomimbi wrote:

From a different source, I understand that the AMU copied the MCP design and were quite unhappy when they found out that MCP holds a patent on it.

Why would the AMU be concerned about patents?

The answer is they wouldn't be. Patents are only of interest to someone making commercial items for sale ...The AMU is not a commercial enterprise and is not offering any products for sale so anyone suing them for patent infrigement ( a very expensive proposition) would have no case. Isabel

Not entirely correct, I believe. IIRC, the US Army copied some features of the 1898 Mauser in the 1903 Springfield. Mauser sued and prevailed.

GOVTMODEL wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:

jomimbi wrote:

From a different source, I understand that the AMU copied the MCP design and were quite unhappy when they found out that MCP holds a patent on it.

Why would the AMU be concerned about patents?

The answer is they wouldn't be. Patents are only of interest to someone making commercial items for sale ...The AMU is not a commercial enterprise and is not offering any products for sale so anyone suing them for patent infrigement ( a very expensive proposition) would have no case. Isabel

Not entirely correct, I believe. IIRC, the US Army copied some features of the 1898 Mauser in the 1903 Springfield. Mauser sued and prevailed.

not to get into the fine details of patent and contract law but you are talking apples and oranges. There is a huge difference between the
Army using their own or anyone elses methods in house at the AMU to accurize their Berettas, and the government copying a Mauser patent and then letting a contract to Springfield to maunfacture a rifle that includes a patented design held by Mauser. At that point you have crossed over into the commercial side of things and it became a patent violation. Again, MCP may have a patent on some part of what ever accurizing process that they use for the M9 but the only way for them to find out if it is an enforeceable patent is for MCP to sue someone for a violation. My guess is that if they did that, AND the court determined that what ever methods that MCP was using were in common use (or essentially similar) to the methods used by David Sams, Tony Kidd or other gunsmiths at the AMU. their patent would be gone. If there were a millon people in this country who wanted an accurized Beretta it might be worth suing. As it stands now with the market for these guns being so small, it would be a very poor business decision to pursue it in court. I suspect that MCP's statement that they have a patent is for advertising purposes to make their customers feel that they are getting something special that cannot be obtained from any other source. Good PR, and good marketing but not necessarily legally enforceable. Isabel

Some additonal notes as I have done a bit more research on this topic. First of all I concede that the Springfield armory was at least a quasi government agency if not totally owned and controlled by the US government in 1903. However I can find no indication that Mauser either sued or won in any case against the Army (aka the US Government). Notes I did find, indicate that the Army admitted a patent violation through the use of a Mauser patent in the 1903 Springfield and voluntarily agreed to pay Mauser for their use of the Mauser patent. It was necessary that the Army admit this and voluntarily pay for the patent infrigement because the government including all of its agencies have soverign immunity from civil suits. Basically this means that you can't sue the government unless they waive their soverign immunity and allow you to do so. Isabel

I think that Isabel is right. Even if there are applicable patents, I don't think that these would prevent the AMU from procuring M9's and upgrading them, as long as they don't attempt to commercialize the resulting design. It's my understanding that it's legitimate to incorporate patented designs for your own use, so long as you don't sell or license the resulting device.

Dr. Nick's workshop isn't far from me, and I know people who know him through the regional BE circuit. By all accounts he's a nice guy and a good patron of the sport.

But whenever his name comes up it's associated with a lot of claims that come off as BS.

. . . .

MCP has been doing the pistol work for many all of the reserve and guard shooting teams.
From a different source, I understand that the AMU copied the MCP design and were quite unhappy when they found out that MCP holds a patent on it.
Oh, and to the person that indicated MCP is a little slow... yeah, that's certainly true. They've been ironing out the kinks in their process... The pistols are great, but the speed... -smile- I guess I'd rather have it done right. Right and fast would be better

I don't know who your source is but I have stated before, and do so here again, the AMU has never copied any, been unhappy about any, nor have they ever been remotely jealous of any of the products or processes coming from MCP.
The AMU was building match Beretta's more than a decade before there was an MCP.
The National Trophy Individual (NTI) record is held by an AMU shooter with an AMU Beretta.
Last year the then President Hundred record was broken by 2 AMU shooters (old record also belonged to Hendo), the top 5 scores, and 7 of the top 10 places went to the AMU.
The National Trophy Team match was won by AMU Blue.
Currently CMP's National ranking system lists the top 8 spots as AMU shooters with AMU Beretta's. For the top scores in 2009, 27 of the 30 top scores are from AMU.
As for the Reserve and Guard members, their respective commands faced with limited resources and tough choices have made decisions pursuing different directions in marksmanship. The people interested in bullseye will at times get their own pistols rather than use old ones provided by respective commands.
Nothing against MCP or their pistols. The MCP team had one helluva good year and I have immense respect for all of them, they have earned it. The above statements are simply to show that the AMU is doing fine using their own established procedures and is not looking to MCP for anything. You may admire the MCP pistols, extol the processes they use, brag about the product you received, but when you post comments implying the U.S military is not smart enough to build their own guns, Actually I am going to stop here, I said enough

nd2ga wrote:Nothing against MCP or their pistols. The MCP team had one helluva good year and I have immense respect for all of them, they have earned it. The above statements are simply to show that the AMU is doing fine using their own established procedures and is not looking to MCP for anything. You may admire the MCP pistols, extol the processes they use, brag about the product you received, but when you post comments implying the U.S military is not smart enough to build their own guns, Actually I am going to stop here, I said enough

I'm going to have to defer to your keeping of BE related stats. It's MUCH more likely that you know those than I do.

Working for DoD, as I do, I've seen alot of really great stuff, and I've seen some pretty odd stuff / craptastic stuff.

Smart is not the issue... time and money is the issue. The WARFIGHTER gets the cash, and the AMU get's whatever funding they can get their hands on.

It's a simple matter of economics... If the Army decided that they'd staff the AMU with Officers that had masters degrees in engineering technology or physics to do all of the work, then you'd be 100% correct.

I'm not saying that the sun shines out of Dr. Nick's / MCP bum, but he does have the time and engineering resources to put out a product that is currently better than anything the AMU is fielding.

...of course, he's putting out ALOT fewer weapons than the AMU.

Is there anyone other than MCP and David Sams building Beretta hardball guns for non-military shooters? I think that Tony Kidd used to make some but now he's just making 10/22 parts.

Orpanaut wrote:Is there anyone other than MCP and David Sams building Beretta hardball guns for non-military shooters? I think that Tony Kidd used to make some but now he's just making 10/22 parts.

You could always go for a 9mm 1911, which is legal.

I know MCP is making plenty of them.

(He proprosed an all steel 92sf and that was turned down for match use.)

When you say the 1911 9mm is legal do you mean for NRA bullseye or CMP leg matches?