https://www.defensenews.com/in...penetrating-markets/

Gun-maker Beretta says it’s found the ‘key to penetrating markets’

By: Tom Kington   2 days ago

ROME ― Italian gun-maker Beretta is eyeing a new technology transfer deal with Argentina after concluding a similar deal with Qatar, claiming handing over technology to allow international customers to build their own guns is the future.

The firm is looking at transferring technology to Argentinian state manufacturer Fabricaciones Militares for the production of handguns and assault rifles, said Carlo Ferlito, vice president of Beretta Defense Technologies.

“This will happen increasingly — it is key to penetrating markets,” he said. “All customers want control of supply.”

Beretta is now looking at future deals to transfer technology to international clients in Africa and Asia, he said.

In March, Beretta signed with Qatar to create a joint venture based there with the country’s Ministry of Defence to produce its ARX160 and ARX200 assault rifles, as well as its 92A1 pistol for Qatar government use.

Under the deal, Beretta will hold a minority stake in the joint venture, which will receive technology transfer from Beretta Holding Group and will build a manufacturing facility in Doha.

Ferlito did not reveal the order that was involved in the deal.

“The first transfer of technology is complete, and Qatar will have total independence in six years,” he said.

The firm has previously struck a deal for partial technology transfer with Egypt for the local production of its Px4 pistol.

Turning to the U.S. market, Ferlito said the firm was viewing pending competitions.

“Everyone talks about the next-generation squad assault weapon, and we are looking into the program,” he said. “We have ideas about what we would offer. It will be challenging in terms of lethality, recoil reduction and weight.”

Ferlito praised Beretta’s M9 pistol, which was in service with the U.S. Army for three decades before being replaced last year by the Sig Sauer XM17 Modular Handgun System.

“There has been a lot of confusion about the M9,” he said. “It was criticized for its ammunition, not the gun itself. We proved that to the customer, and we are still delivering to the U.S. Army on the previous contracts, and we are passing tests showing it is incredibly reliable.”

Ferlito said the M9 era was not over. “It has [a] lot to say, and the latest modifications make it very interesting for a lot of armies around the world. Having said that, this is the year of polymer, and the customer wants polymer,” he said.

“The U.S. chose the cheapest option, not the best performing option, because they chose to stop the tests before their completion because of the offer they received,” he said.

Turning back to the next-generation squad assault weapon, he added: “I hope they will stick to requirement and not turn to the cheapest offer as they did with the Modular Handgun System.”

quote:

“The U.S. chose the cheapest option, not the best performing option, because they chose to stop the tests before their completion because of the offer they received,” he said.

I'm not sure that Sig would agree with that characterization.

Penetrate markets is only one facet to success.
Implementation and execution is another matter.

And a whole lot more money.

The Small Arms non-proliferation treaty probably dictates this direction for EU member countries that wish to continue overseas sales.

quote:

I'm not sure that Sig would agree with that characterization.

But Glock would.

quote:

Originally posted by soggy_spinout:

quote:

I'm not sure that Sig would agree with that characterization.

But Glock would.

Considering Glock was famous for the low bid, especially in its early days when it was trying to wrest law enforcement share away from the likes of S&W and SIG...I'm pretty sure that's called "turnabout is fair play."

This is good for Beretta - HK did something similar in the past, licensing Turkey and other countries (?) to manufacture their designs.

Well Beretta can't seem to actually make shit these days, so maybe a license is the answer. Their products are vaporware around here and I'm an hour away from the factory

quote:

Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:
Well Beretta can't seem to actually make shit these days, so maybe a license is the answer. Their products are vaporware around here and I'm an hour away from the factory

production is finally flowing from Gallatin. New M9A1's hit the market and are plentiful. More to come...

Not sure how new this is, Beretta did the same thing in Brazil years ago and Browning did it with Argentina as well. Good luck to Beretta, the more successful companies the more choices available to consumers.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Decker:

quote:

Originally posted by soggy_spinout:

quote:

I'm not sure that Sig would agree with that characterization.

But Glock would.

Considering Glock was famous for the low bid, especially in its early days when it was trying to wrest law enforcement share away from the likes of S&W and SIG...I'm pretty sure that's called "turnabout is fair play."

There seem to be several folks that either weren't around in those days, or they conveniently forget this. Glock owns the LE market in part due to these very tactics. It was not uncommon for Glock to fall into an agency and take ANYTHING in trade. They would provide guns, parts, holsters, training, and ammo at no cost. Personal purchase guns were dirt cheap. I bought my first blue label gun in the early 90's for $275 with two mags. It was something like $310 with night sights. Armorers classes were $50 per person. Magazines for agencies were $9. Personal purchase mags were $16.

Smith and Wesson did the same thing with the advent of the M&P with pretty good success. Some of the guns had pretty serious problems, and Glock won back several agencies because of it.

Now, it is SIGs turn. When I hear someone decry the military for going with the "cheapest" I really laugh about it. It is certainly the little things in life.

When we talk about sidearms in the military, for many people it conjures this image of a bearded, multicam Delta dude storming a jetliner in some shit hole to rescue hostages armed with a pistol dispatching folks to their 72 virgins. That is the exception and not the rule. For the most part, sidearms in the military don't matter. Tier One guys aren't affected by big Army rules, and to the average user in the big military they know which end the bullets go in, and which end they come out of. For the most part, our military doesn't spend sufficient time turning out gunfighters with a pistol.

SIG, Beretta, or Glock, its all good. The M9 will see military service for at least another decade in the US. If anyone doubts that, look how long it took the Beretta to replace the 1911 fully in all units, both active and reserve components.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
There seem to be several folks that either weren't around in those days, or they conveniently forget this. Glock owns the LE market in part due to these very tactics. It was not uncommon for Glock to fall into an agency and take ANYTHING in trade. They would provide guns, parts, holsters, training, and ammo at no cost. Personal purchase guns were dirt cheap. I bought my first blue label gun in the early 90's for $275 with two mags. It was something like $310 with night sights. Armorers classes were $50 per person. Magazines for agencies were $9. Personal purchase mags were $16.

A very valid observation. I will add, though, that none of that would have mattered if the Glock wasn't also a very capable and reliable weapon system. A point I hope Sig remembers.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
There seem to be several folks that either weren't around in those days, or they conveniently forget this. Glock owns the LE market in part due to these very tactics. It was not uncommon for Glock to fall into an agency and take ANYTHING in trade. They would provide guns, parts, holsters, training, and ammo at no cost. Personal purchase guns were dirt cheap. I bought my first blue label gun in the early 90's for $275 with two mags. It was something like $310 with night sights. Armorers classes were $50 per person. Magazines for agencies were $9. Personal purchase mags were $16.

A very valid observation. I will add, though, that none of that would have mattered if the Glock wasn't a very capable and reliable weapon system. A point I hope Sig remembers.

Very much agreed.

Glock has had its own ups and downs, and has not been immune to VERY serious problems. Some problems to this day they deny. But, like any other major manufacturer, they made the issues right. The Gen5 pistols are their best work yet, and I am a yuge fan.

Between this and the 2.0, I am in striker nirvana.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
The Gen5 pistols are their best work yet, and I am a yuge fan.

I'm glad to hear you say this. Your opinion on this carries a lot of weight. I've been considering adding another G19 or two to my Gen3 collection, and was underwhelmed with the Gen4's. I'll be giving the G5 a look.

As for Beretta, isn't this exactly what they did in Brazil years ago? So what's new? Aren't they just going to end up creating competitors like they did with the Taurus PT92? Maybe I'm ignorant of the deal with Taurus. I always thought the Brazilian government essentially took the plant from Beretta. Does Taurus pay a royalty?

With regards to Brazil (and my faulty memory): my understanding is that Beretta sold the plant to Taurus once their contract with the Brazilian military was completed. This transpired in the late 70s or early 80s, I believe. Beretta neglected to remove the machinery and tooling that was still there when that deal was finalized. Taurus with this manufacturing windfall started making PT92 without any licensing agreement or any responsibility to pay royalties, since Beretta DID sell them the equipment. From what I recall, Beretta wasn't a happy camper over this. Don't remember if Beretta tried going to court but if they did it's pretty clear that they probably would've lost regardless, since Taurus is still happily churning out its 92 clones to this day.

Perhaps Beretta should find the key to ramping up production in Tennessee while maintaining product quality and meeting consumer demands?