mljdeckard
Member
Do you know whick pistols the Beretta takes its functionality from?
A soldiers thoughts on the M9
- Thread starter Walking Dead
- Start date
- Status
Nushif
Member
I rarely find it useful tracing a working technology back to its roots. Just because the modern Windows platform can be traced back to the hardware architecture of a C64 doesn't mean the C64 is the better computer.
Believe me, I love the 1911 as well, but coming from a military planner's perspective the M9 is the better gun. Why? Because it works and more people can shoot it well with less training. That leaves more time for training in the important things like tactics, SOPs, RoEs, Rifles, pesky things like that. Oh yeah, and keep in mind about 80% of the army is not used in a Combat capacity, so at some point we have to teach them how to do that job, too. Oh yeah, and if we ever run out, I can meander on over one FOB and ask the Belgian guy for some ammo.
/RantOn
I am frankly very, very tired of people in my formations being butthurt because we're making them shoot a functional pistol with higher capacity and lighter ammo than a functional pistol with lower capacity and heavier ammo.
There are times when I want to offer them the chance to get their full battle rattle on, hand them an M1 with 300 rounds, a 1911 with 30 and then ask them what they think about fighting the war we're currently fighting equipped like this.
/RantOff
Believe me, I love the 1911 as well, but coming from a military planner's perspective the M9 is the better gun. Why? Because it works and more people can shoot it well with less training. That leaves more time for training in the important things like tactics, SOPs, RoEs, Rifles, pesky things like that. Oh yeah, and keep in mind about 80% of the army is not used in a Combat capacity, so at some point we have to teach them how to do that job, too. Oh yeah, and if we ever run out, I can meander on over one FOB and ask the Belgian guy for some ammo.
/RantOn
I am frankly very, very tired of people in my formations being butthurt because we're making them shoot a functional pistol with higher capacity and lighter ammo than a functional pistol with lower capacity and heavier ammo.
There are times when I want to offer them the chance to get their full battle rattle on, hand them an M1 with 300 rounds, a 1911 with 30 and then ask them what they think about fighting the war we're currently fighting equipped like this.
/RantOff
DonGlock26
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 259
I carried a 1911 in mid-1980's as a Cav scout driver. It was very inaccurate. The M-9 is a good pistol, but I think the P226 would have been a better choice.
You mean like the Wars we won with that type a equipment. And not the one's we keep loosing. Or is it the grunts and generals that are defective and not the equipment we give them to use???
When you can win this war, I will listen, until then it's just noise.
Jim
Carter
Member
My brother loved the m9 he used while doing security in the Navy. Then again he isn't that much of a gun guy. To him a 1911 style safety is backwards and carrying cocked and locked with a 1911 is strange.
Nushif
Member
I think you're not taking into account the sixty pound vest, three sets of radios or various commo equipment, five gallons of water and any other gear I can assure you we didn't carry in Korea or Vietnam.
Do you have any concept of the equipment load the average soldier has these days? Or does the fact that we are discharging thousands of soldiers because of injuries monthly because they are carrying too much weight just not mean anything?
Seven rounds or fifteen rounds for the same weight ... Hmmm. You tell that guy who had to stop short his Army career because of his knees and back that he really just needed to carry heavier rifles and heavier pistols and miraculously he would win the war and he would never have messed up his back and knees for life.
Last edited:
We already won ours with the equipment you don't like, now it's time for you to get off the pot and win yours. If you can't then it's time you look at what you are doing and what you are using. (10 years is rediculous, get the job done or get a different job)
Jim
Nushif
Member
I think your reply speaks volumes about your grasp on the current COIN situation and have no need to say any more.
crazysccrmd
Member
Wow...this thread went downhill. Try fighting in 'our' war first before you compare it to 'your' war. Unfortunately it's not as simple as killing the guy in the other uniform.
Texan Scott
Member
Not my personal preference, but duty issue weapons never are, are they? they'll never be all thing to all people. Overall, it works for anything a full-sized 9mm can be expected to do. (note i said, it works... not that they couldn't do better, but it works. low bidder, etc etc.)
PERSONALLY, though...
Frame size is fine (i have really big mitts).
HATE the DA/SA transition... one or the other is fine by me, but not both.
HATE the safety/ decocker. safety's in the wrong place, wrong direction, and if they were DAO or SAO, a decocker would be unnecessary.
PERSONALLY, though...
Frame size is fine (i have really big mitts).
HATE the DA/SA transition... one or the other is fine by me, but not both.
HATE the safety/ decocker. safety's in the wrong place, wrong direction, and if they were DAO or SAO, a decocker would be unnecessary.
First off, I don't care who you are, and which war you won -- if you think that it's the joes on the ground that are a limiting factor in what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you are well off your rocker. It is the civilian leadership, trying to use a hammer to knit a quilt, that is the real problem here. Militarily, US forces are absolutely mopping the floor with opposing forces. It is when they're being used by leadership (both civilian and military) for purposes that military forces were never intended to do, and simultaneously hamstring with ROE that even confuses attorneys, that we get into situations we're currently in. It is in no way whatsoever indicative of some shortcoming in the skills or will of the GIs trying valiantly to accomplish the mission impossible handed them by their leadership. It's incomprehensible that you could in any way believe it to be the problem of the warriors on the ground and not see the real problem with the mission and leadership.
Second, his post wasn't criticizing the M1, the 1911, or the GIs that fought valiantly with them -- he was criticizing the current joes who complain about the current equipment they're given for very unfounded reasons. He was saying that if they mounted up with that heavier gear, they'd better appreciate the stuff they have.
Overall, with an attitude like that, I really don't care what war you were in or how it turned out -- you can take your self righteousness and cram it right up your....well, you get the idea. The guys on the ground today doing the j-o-b have my highest respects because I've seen them at work (and been right in it with them). They're doing a fantastic job.
Certaindeaf
member
^
Amen.
Amen.
Texan Scott
Member
OEF was what broke me. OIF was surprisingly OK from my own POV at the time. There are 3 African countries that irritated, bothered, and at times, really upset me. There's one place you couldn't pay me enough ever to go again. We all lost something, somewhere. We all have complaints about equipment, and regrets about the way some things turned out. Criticizing equipment is fair. Criticizing political leadership MAY be fair. BUT, If we don't treat each other with dignity and respect, nobody else will. If you were there, or *there*, or over *there*, wherever/ whenever that was... i hear you, i feel you, ok?
BREATHE, then continue griping about equipment...
BREATHE, then continue griping about equipment...
piece of meat
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2010
- Messages
- 179
If only they were all issued ww2 era 1911s, an eyepatch and a flask of jack daniels, they would have beat afghanistan instantly!!
Devonai
Member
I honestly don't think the DA/SA transition is much of a problem if you practice it every time you shoot. It is required as part of the Air Force qualification (except for the 25m portion). I've never borked a qual because I sent a DA shot into the stratosphere.
It is no mistake that my most common carry pistols all have the same setup. However, my PX4 and 3913 arguably have better DA pulls than my 92FS. Whether I carry according to my preference (safety on), or carried according to Air Force preference (safety off), I instinctively sweep the safety up as my pistol passes a 45 degree angle.
All of that being said, I fully understand that this is entirely a matter of personal preference, and as long as I'm not sitting in a chair in the Pentagon making decisions for other people, I'm satisfied.
It is no mistake that my most common carry pistols all have the same setup. However, my PX4 and 3913 arguably have better DA pulls than my 92FS. Whether I carry according to my preference (safety on), or carried according to Air Force preference (safety off), I instinctively sweep the safety up as my pistol passes a 45 degree angle.
All of that being said, I fully understand that this is entirely a matter of personal preference, and as long as I'm not sitting in a chair in the Pentagon making decisions for other people, I'm satisfied.
ApacheCoTodd
member
Unfortunate. I was enjoying the direct experience (as OP requested) input - especially the experiences counter to my own positive M-9 defensive experiences.
I was particularly interested in what seemed to be magazine and armorer level maintenance shortcomings. I had the great good fortune to be the first issuee of my M-9 and in fact all on my team were new and in SF we had always had the opportunity to select personal mags from new and reject many, then personalize and hang onto ours as protectively as one would a canteen, headgear and the like.
Let's bring this thread back 'round as the info has been damn good.
I was particularly interested in what seemed to be magazine and armorer level maintenance shortcomings. I had the great good fortune to be the first issuee of my M-9 and in fact all on my team were new and in SF we had always had the opportunity to select personal mags from new and reject many, then personalize and hang onto ours as protectively as one would a canteen, headgear and the like.
Let's bring this thread back 'round as the info has been damn good.
PRM
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,111
Bottom line ... does everyone like the Beretta - NO.
Is the Beretta a suitable service weapon - Yes.
Is the 9mm a viable caliber - look at its history!
Does maintenance and armorer replacement of required parts on an M9 affect the system - No more than any other weapon.
I had the 1911 when I first went on active duty in 1972. Became an LEO in 1977 when revolvers were all that was allowed. I've been issued the M14, M16 in various models, and went to Afghanistan in 09-10 with the M4 and M9. Yep - I'm a lifer, between Active Duty, Reserves and National Guard, I'm looking at 40 years and plan on going until mandatory retirement at age 60 (which will put me right at 43 years total service). This is speaking from just personal experience.
Every weapons system I had ever been acquainted with was dependent heavy on proper maintenance and service. I personally like the M9 for reasons previously posted. Its a good gun that fits the specs. (it won the contract). Are there other guns that fit individual hands and taste better - sure. But, the Beretta met the criteria better than its competition. For personal use, go to a range and rent one. If it fits own it - if not look at something else. You are not going to get any info off of an internet forum that will equal your own hands on experience.
Is the Beretta a suitable service weapon - Yes.
Is the 9mm a viable caliber - look at its history!
Does maintenance and armorer replacement of required parts on an M9 affect the system - No more than any other weapon.
I had the 1911 when I first went on active duty in 1972. Became an LEO in 1977 when revolvers were all that was allowed. I've been issued the M14, M16 in various models, and went to Afghanistan in 09-10 with the M4 and M9. Yep - I'm a lifer, between Active Duty, Reserves and National Guard, I'm looking at 40 years and plan on going until mandatory retirement at age 60 (which will put me right at 43 years total service). This is speaking from just personal experience.
Every weapons system I had ever been acquainted with was dependent heavy on proper maintenance and service. I personally like the M9 for reasons previously posted. Its a good gun that fits the specs. (it won the contract). Are there other guns that fit individual hands and taste better - sure. But, the Beretta met the criteria better than its competition. For personal use, go to a range and rent one. If it fits own it - if not look at something else. You are not going to get any info off of an internet forum that will equal your own hands on experience.
I love the platform! One of my favorites. If the versions that I liked were not so expensive for civilians, I would own many. That being said, no 9mm platform is going to have a good combat track record when it is forced to shoot FMJ. So, I love the platform, but hate the ammo I had to shoot while in the service. As a side note, I am not a "soldier" but a sailor, and I did not exactly carry the M9, but rather the M9A1 the Marines issued to me.
Indeed, it is. I shouldn't have met fire with fire, but in this case I felt that jim243's posts were way, way out of line and needed to be discussed. What I posted was actually toned down from what I had written before I pushed "enter".
I should have handled it through flagging posts to mods or PMs instead. My apologies to all.
catch 22
I've taught / instructed / carried both... never used one in a situation much more than, agressive posture.
sure 9mm doesn't have the knock down... but have you ever tried to train a Marine/Sailor who's never shot a pistol before? 9mm is still too much for them. The USMC got it right about 5 years ago buying a metric **** ton of Berretta mags, when taken care of it's the AK-47 of pistols.
the old 1911 MEUSOC's and Kimbers that the Marine Corps has are aged, worn, mismatched and work... they're in the hands of the men who need them.
There are better things on the market, sure, but as a mass produced, mass trained, simple to use, simple to shoot, ergonomic for 80% of it's intended personnel, it fits the bill and does it's job.
With the introduction and number of M4's the military has the old 'side arm' has little more use that a "rear ecchelon" paper weight.
I've taught / instructed / carried both... never used one in a situation much more than, agressive posture.
sure 9mm doesn't have the knock down... but have you ever tried to train a Marine/Sailor who's never shot a pistol before? 9mm is still too much for them. The USMC got it right about 5 years ago buying a metric **** ton of Berretta mags, when taken care of it's the AK-47 of pistols.
the old 1911 MEUSOC's and Kimbers that the Marine Corps has are aged, worn, mismatched and work... they're in the hands of the men who need them.
There are better things on the market, sure, but as a mass produced, mass trained, simple to use, simple to shoot, ergonomic for 80% of it's intended personnel, it fits the bill and does it's job.
With the introduction and number of M4's the military has the old 'side arm' has little more use that a "rear ecchelon" paper weight.
Steve CT
Member
I came onto this topic late, but Hacker owes no apology, I'm surprised this has not gotten locked. If this is about "you guys can't get it done" because of the sidearm being used, that is so disrespectful of American Service Men and Women engaged in wars that they are not allowed to win, words do not describe my disgust with this position.
Last edited:
- Status
