US Military and the Beretta M9

Why the military went to the M9 and the 9mm round has to do with politics and NATO.

I believe that the 9mm is underated. I think this comes partly from popular culture where the .40 is king, and partly because the FMJ is not the ideal SD bullet.

Bottom line, in a war, any handgun is going to come up short. Since the purpose of a handgun is to get you to your rifle, I suspect that the military deams the 9mm sufficient in terms of power...especially out of a 5" barrel...it works quite well in shorter barrels (unlike some calibers) and it is a very common caliber and less expensive to produce than many.

The 9mm is very underatted and frankly some of that is our fault. In the US, 9mm is loaded lighter than the round was designed for.

Obviously the .45 is a great caliber but since only we use it, there are some economies of scale that we would not be able to take advantage of. You are already in a world of hurt if you have to rely on a handgun on the battlefield even if you had a .44 magnum.

No handgun has the "knockdown" power to be an effective or reliable handgun.

Of course I would prefer my 1911, but it's not gonna happen. If the army would let me take 500 rds of my own choice of ammo, I would use the M-9 and be.....less dissatisfied.

Remember this. The choice of issue sidearm has never affected the outcome of a war.

And we will tell NATO to go pound sand if we want to. We rallied to get them all to accept 7.62 as the rifle round, and as soon as they did, we switched to 5.56. They didn't change for decades. They used 9mm for decades while we used the .45. I think NATO's influence in the decision is greatly exaggerated.

(It's easy to spot the new guys, isn't it?

NATO conformity of ammunition standards.

The 9mm isn't as ineffective as many have been led to believe.

Why do people think that .35 (9mm) vs .40 vs .45 is really going to make a tremendous difference in FMJ form?

The .45 is only 30% larger diameter and the .40 only 15%. But by the same token the 9mm G17 holds 30% more rounds then the .45 G21 and 13% more rounds then the .40 G22.

Basically its a capacity vs bullet size arguement. In a military situation unlike a self defense situation a higher magazine capacity is important.

The 40 is a 10mm and the 45 is a 11.5mm, is 1 mm and 1.5 mm really gonna be a that huge of a game changer? I tend to doubt it.

Now in a self defense scenario where it almost always 6 rounds or less I could argue for the big bullet.

However in a self defense hollow points are allowed and all 3 calibers are plenty adequate with the right loads in JHP.

I prefer 9mm because I dont reload and its cost about half as much as the other two do which means more practice and more hits in the vitals which is more important then anything else imo.

I think reliability and ease of use as well as the high capacity are all factors and as has been said, the sidearm never affects the outcome of a war.
I never feel undergunned with a 9mm especially if it is packing 12 or more rds.

In the military, a pistol is mainly a "crowd control" device. Armies use high explosives to do most of it's killing, rifles and machine guns do the close up killing. The 9mm is as effective as any in urging folks to follow instructions.

The Beretta M9 is a very well made handgun. Showing it's age perhaps, but still a proven, dependable gun.

Pistols are also primarily a "badge of office."

Grenades, machine guns, artillery and rifles are meant for "knocking down" enemy soldiers.

We are NATO, the US is NATO.

We choose the M9 and 9mm.

But that was.....how many years after Britain started using the hi-power?

There are similar stories of ineffectiveness for .45 ACP too. IIRC, one failure led Texas Highway Patrol to replace its .45 ACP with .357 SIG.

^^Again, no handgun is adequate for SD. I don't see any conclusive data to say that .357 Sig is an improvement.

I don't see any conclusive data to say that .357 Sig is an improvement.

Click to expand...

I agree. It's just another choice.

"knockdown" power is a myth with FMJ rounds anyhow, unless you center punch bone mass. A flesh wound will leave him/her walking in most cases. So if we throw the force of impact aruement out the window what stops the BG is blood leaving the body, so more holes or bigger holes are the answer. And remember 1 big hit is better than 13 tiny misses.

I sell guns, and I meet LOTS of service members at work. I often ask them their opinion of the M9, because I figure they're pretty damned qualified to talk about it.

I've heard a lot of different answers. One young Marine called it "dead weight." He said you just won't engage an enemy closer than about 150 meters, and they carry plenty of 5.56 -- so the M9 just kind of sits there.

I just spoke with a soldier yesterday who told me that, while it wouldn't be his first choice, they "beat the piss out of" their M9s and they keep functioning just fine. When I asked how it reacts to sand, he told me that you really need to keep it clear of that sort of debris.

I've also talked to a lot of soldiers and Marines about why exactly the military switched to a 9mm Beretta, of all things. I've heard a few different answers -- capacity, politics, money, weight, etc. But one thing I keep hearing is that in the 1980s, a lot of women were getting into the military and couldn't handle the recoil of the .45 ACP. Can anyone substantiate that?

Anyway, there are definitely a few units that use something else. One that comes to mind is the Marine Expeditionary Unit, which uses the MEU(SOC) pistol -- Marine Expeditionary Unit Special Operations Capable 1911.

And remember 1 big hit is better than 13 tiny misses.

Click to expand...

Depends on the hit, I have gut shot small 100lb does (for meat) with a 12 guage slug at less then 25 yards (yes I know bad shot) and seen then run away to never be found. (I am sure they died eventually)

And by the same token I have heard of people poaching deer with .22 LR by flashing them at night and putting one in the brain. They used 22 to minimize noise as to not alert the authorities.

Shot placement then adequate penetration then caliber, in that order.

I've seen a lot of them fail. Mostly from soldiers doodling with them. There is no foolproof system, there's always a fool out there trying to make a name for himself. Brand new ones. If I were again an armorer, I would be wishing that they would issue something that's a lot herder to doodle with, and easier to fix if someone does. (GLOCK.) But no one asked me.

The DOD's choice of sidearm illustrates the 'mind over matter' principle. They don't mind, because YOU don't matter. Yes, I will always consider it inferior to my rifle, but at the same time, if life ever gets so silly that I have to use it RIGHT FREAKIN' NOW, it means I don't have time to GET my rifle. It is the time when I least want my equipment to fail. It is VERY important to the individual soldier even if it isn't that important to the DOD.

No, I don't prefer it, but when I am issued one, I go to the range and make sure it works. I check it frequently to make sure it KEEPS working. I would do this no matter what the issue sidearm is. Incidentally, my unit just got some M-11s. (Sig 228s.) I'm hoping that I get to take one of those this time, but even if I do, I will still be using issue ammo. No 147 gr jhps. I have grown to despise the feel and grip of the M-9, but you know what? I can still hit 40/40 with on the qual range.

There are some benefits to smaller, hotter rounds. War isn't just about killing the enemy, it's also a lot of moving supplies around. I don't know the exact number, but I bet you can ship at least 1.5x as many 9mm rounds for a given number of .45. Same for .223 vs, say, .308. Lighter rounds means less shipments and more ammo on a soldier.

9mm is sufficient for a sidearm.

9mm has better penetration too, which could matter in a war

I have spoken with RANGERS and MARINES from the front lines and the only thing ever said of the 9mm which could be called "bad" is sometimes they have to shoot combants twice before they fall. This is BALL AMMO and it still works.

Anything BUT ball ammo would only help the shooter.

Give me +P 124 grn. GOLD DOT HP's and I am a safe boy.

As a matter of fact, some of the contractors (who do not carry ball ) have no problem with carrying a 9mm pistol. Wonder what they are loaded with?

Let me shoot you in the head with my 9mm so you can tell me it's a wimp caliber.

Just saying I never want to be under gunned. IMHO if close qtrs combat ever required use of a sidearm I want a 40 or 45 for the extra punch. Not that "scientifically" it will ever matter to the BG but for me if I cannot hit him with 8 what good is 13 gunna do me. If I gotta shoot em twice with a 9mm and once with a 40/45 your 16 equals my 8. Or give an XD and suddenly I a am high cap as well. Not sayin the 9mm is a bad gun, not hardly I just cant keep the rounds from falling thru the barrel of my 45

I never said I can't do the job with an M-9 loaded with NATO ammo. I WILL say that it is at the extreme low end of the effectiveness chart for handguns. It's not just caliber, I shoot my 1911 in .45 better than I shoot the M-9.