guyfromohio
Member
Second strike...... military pistols are meant to be defensive... last-ditch. Second -strike makes sense when defending oneself. A rifle shooter will generally have the time to clear a dud.
What got the M9 chosen for the US military?
- Thread starter Nordeste
- Start date
- Status
See, all the tactical geniuses that have their "own facts" in their head can't possibly read the thread they are participating in... Why bother with little details like that?
It's much, much easier for them to skip to the end (after seeing the subject title)... Ignore everyone else's post, and give us their master reason why they KNOW it got selected... Reading that PDF file I put up would be too hard for them...
R.W.Dale
Member
In which case this is another fine example of the army getting what it wants and not what it needs. Trapdoor Springfield, gamma goat, Humvee, berets ect
I forget which apc was it that movies were made about how much of a "designed by comitee" debacle it was?
No training worth their complimentary caps will have you stand there wasting time clicking the hammer on a "dud" round Barney Fife style when you're fighting for your life. That time you wasted clicking your hammer on an empty chamber or flashholeless case is time you should have spent performing a clearance drill getting the offending cartridge the heck out of your pistol
posted via tapatalk using android.
^^^This^^^
I was there when we transitioned from the 1911 to the M9. My USMC tank unit got theirs very early in 1986, all Italian made guns.
In the training in both the classroom and at the range the "second strike" capability was only mentioned once, and in passing.
The training was not to pull the trigger a second time but to do the tap, rack and bang drill, (or the military variation at the time)
Not once in 2 militaryservices in 15 plus years and carrying the M9 as my main PDW did I ever hear anyone suggest using the "second strike" capability or extolling its virtue.
I was there when we transitioned from the 1911 to the M9. My USMC tank unit got theirs very early in 1986, all Italian made guns.
In the training in both the classroom and at the range the "second strike" capability was only mentioned once, and in passing.
The training was not to pull the trigger a second time but to do the tap, rack and bang drill, (or the military variation at the time)
Not once in 2 militaryservices in 15 plus years and carrying the M9 as my main PDW did I ever hear anyone suggest using the "second strike" capability or extolling its virtue.
FLAvalanche
Member
You would be suprised at how often this occurs within our own borders and politcians for little things in the military.
My last 3 years of service in the Marines was at the Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch and many parts were accepted simply because the vendor provided campaign contributions to that areas senators and representatives and not because that part was the best.
HoboCoastie
Member
I'm in the Coast Guard and we just switched from the M9 to the Sig P229 DAK about 5 years ago or so.
I'm indifferent to the change. The Sig feels better and has a better DA feel, not to mention it's much simpler for stupid recruits; but the Beretta's SA is nice for accuracy.
I'm indifferent to the change. The Sig feels better and has a better DA feel, not to mention it's much simpler for stupid recruits; but the Beretta's SA is nice for accuracy.
HoboCoastie
Member
We carried it the same way. De-cocked for a DA trigger pull though.
Black Butte
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 888
So what's with these new rounded trigger guards on the 92A1 and 90-Two? I think it's a step backward. Does anyone else prefer the squared-off guard?
LawScholar
Member
I like the rounded guard, but no worries. The M9A1 will continue to be produced with the squared combat trigger guard. If I'm not mistaken, the square guard makes the gun easier to use with gloves and also to brace the gun on corners and cover to fire with more stability.
HoboCoastie
Member
I thought it was there for those shooters who wrap the index finger of their non-firing hand around it. I don't utilize that style, so I wouldn't miss it...though I think it looks cooler on there...and some laser/light accessories use it for rear stability.
At the time of the Beretta's submission for testing, square trigger guards were all the rage in certain shooting circles.
Back then, people paid custom smiths to "square" their semi-auto trigger guards. Manufacturers of the day got on the bandwagon.
Its inclusion on the M9 was simply an expression of a fashion fad of those times.
Back then, people paid custom smiths to "square" their semi-auto trigger guards. Manufacturers of the day got on the bandwagon.
Its inclusion on the M9 was simply an expression of a fashion fad of those times.
LawScholar
Member
I had not thought of that. You're probably correct.
Wow. Lots of misinformation on this thread. What makes that really sad is that the accurate information is readily available to anyone who can access the internet.
A few corrections...
There was no concern about aluminum handguns or the Beretta 92 and the SIG entries would not have been allowed since they both have aluminum frames.
A few corrections...
Glock did not submit an entry because it didn't meet the basic criteria in several respects.
There was no concern about aluminum handguns or the Beretta 92 and the SIG entries would not have been allowed since they both have aluminum frames.
Both the Beretta and SIG entries passed the test. Beretta was selected based on price.
It happens, but it didn't in this case because it couldn't have. Beretta is privately owned.
The "official findings". That doesn't prove anything either. Governments have been rewriting history for as long as humans have been able to print documents. Ever read the 'Official" 911 Commission Report"? If you believe that then I have some beachfront property in Kansas for sale.
I read the entire PDF, great report that puts to rest all of the rumors being claimed throughout most of this thread.
Looks to me like the Government needs some statisticians to determine what is and isn't statistically significant before pass/fail analysis and elimination of competitors based on faulty statistics. Typical Government BS....I wonder how much they spent on all this testing, analysis and litigation? Want to bet it dwarfs the actual contract being signed?
Thanks for posting the PDF........It was a great read.
Looks to me like the Government needs some statisticians to determine what is and isn't statistically significant before pass/fail analysis and elimination of competitors based on faulty statistics. Typical Government BS....I wonder how much they spent on all this testing, analysis and litigation? Want to bet it dwarfs the actual contract being signed?
Thanks for posting the PDF........It was a great read.
HoboCoastie
Member
I like the idea of double strike ability. It's logical that it would be more likely for a soldier in a firefight while in a panic might repeatedly squeeze a trigger at his target rather than think of racking the slide should a fail to fire happen.
Though it's true that that particular element of M9 training was only lightly touched upon and not annunciated like it should've been. I can see where in the heat of the fight, it could be difficult for the shooter to have the presence of mind to rack the slide on a Glock and chamber a new round.
One thing to remember is that not all military pistol packers have received adequate training on said firearm. I'm prior Navy and I was responsible for some level of small arms training during duty days for the duty section. When somebody is certified on a weapon, that means they went to the range and fired that weapon ONCE. That qual doesn't expire until they transfer to another unit. That means a guy could be carrying a weapon he only fired once four years ago. The familiarity isn't there and neither is the accuracy and most importantly the confidence.
Though it's true that that particular element of M9 training was only lightly touched upon and not annunciated like it should've been. I can see where in the heat of the fight, it could be difficult for the shooter to have the presence of mind to rack the slide on a Glock and chamber a new round.
One thing to remember is that not all military pistol packers have received adequate training on said firearm. I'm prior Navy and I was responsible for some level of small arms training during duty days for the duty section. When somebody is certified on a weapon, that means they went to the range and fired that weapon ONCE. That qual doesn't expire until they transfer to another unit. That means a guy could be carrying a weapon he only fired once four years ago. The familiarity isn't there and neither is the accuracy and most importantly the confidence.
One other thought re: second strike. Battlefields can be awfully noisy places. A lot louder than even a serious cops-and-robbers gunfight. Grenades, RPG's, artillery, and all other manner of explosive devices may be blasting the ears of any soldier, and hitting him (or her) with concussive force, at the moment the primer fails to ignite on a round. If that's the case, the soldier may not even know the gun has failed to go off. In that circumstance, of course they would squeeze the trigger again. In a truly unhinged situation, it might take several failed pulls before a shooter even notices. May as well be striking the primer while that's happening...
rodinal220
Member
Itis threatened to force US out of airbases.Its all pay to play.The whole service pistol trials stink to high heaven,like most govt contracts.
Agreed! I have heard and read people say "I don't even care about second-strike capability. If I have a dud I am immediately doing the failure drill."
But it just seems over-confident. In the heat of battle (or a SD situation) where you are pulling the trigger rapidly to neutralize the threat, I think even a highly-trained person could pull the trigger 3 or 4 times before realizing they have a dud. Try having someone load a snap cap for you and not tell you where it is, and proceed to do a rapid-fire mag dump. Even knowing that a dud is coming, I bet a lot of people will pull the trigger twice on the snap cap, before clearing it out. In the heat of battle, not knowing it is coming, with an under-trained individual, second-strike makes sense.
I'd have joined in with the discussion a lot more vigorously if this was 1986.
Since then I've fired and stripped/cleaned both SIGs and Berettas, and while not a super fan of either, I really can see why the 92 makes more sense. The Beretta comes apart more like most other military service weapons I have handled, whereas the SIG comes apart more like a browning buckmark. Lots of weird little captive springs.
I've also owned S&W autos that are similar to S&W's entries into the competition. I am fine with them but can see how they are not really "mil-spec-ish" in their basic design.
The Beretta always struck me as a product developed P-38. Not sure why I never read that in any gun tabloid, but it does seem to be a follow on development to a successful military autoloader. In fact the very military autoloader that first convinced the US Army that they needed a DA with decocker in 9mm.
No one can call me a Beretta fan boy or whatever, as I own (and keep) versions of the competitor's guns that make less sense to me as military service pistols and have never owned the one that makes the most sense to me. I really think Glock is a better product in many ways to any of the DA guns, but that is my opinion and really not relevant to the discussion.
My bottom line on this is that the US military ended up with a gun that is pretty good within the confines of the specifications developed by the joint board, and seems an obvious better choice when compared to the competition within the context of long term supportability.
Now that almost 30 years have passed, and technology has moved forward, it would be fair to revisit the issue and hold another selection. There are rumors of this being in folk's minds within DoD. We have a different geopolitical situation, and the idea of common ammo seems a joke when the US pays for everything whenever we go to war. We can hardly get NATO to do a damn thing, and the countries that do show up to support our efforts have to lean on us heavily for logistical support. We also have a history of being pretty good at forcing NATO to comply with our selections for standard gear.
My guess (no deep genius here, just looking at what is obviously out there) would be a polymer framed DAO, possibly in another cartridge. I would not be shocked by a move back to 45acp or to a new cartridge like 40s&w. Surprised, but not floored with shock.
I think a safe suggestion to any future entries for such a selection would be to stay away from roll pins and tiny springs in your design. No one wants that.
Since then I've fired and stripped/cleaned both SIGs and Berettas, and while not a super fan of either, I really can see why the 92 makes more sense. The Beretta comes apart more like most other military service weapons I have handled, whereas the SIG comes apart more like a browning buckmark. Lots of weird little captive springs.
I've also owned S&W autos that are similar to S&W's entries into the competition. I am fine with them but can see how they are not really "mil-spec-ish" in their basic design.
The Beretta always struck me as a product developed P-38. Not sure why I never read that in any gun tabloid, but it does seem to be a follow on development to a successful military autoloader. In fact the very military autoloader that first convinced the US Army that they needed a DA with decocker in 9mm.
No one can call me a Beretta fan boy or whatever, as I own (and keep) versions of the competitor's guns that make less sense to me as military service pistols and have never owned the one that makes the most sense to me. I really think Glock is a better product in many ways to any of the DA guns, but that is my opinion and really not relevant to the discussion.
My bottom line on this is that the US military ended up with a gun that is pretty good within the confines of the specifications developed by the joint board, and seems an obvious better choice when compared to the competition within the context of long term supportability.
Now that almost 30 years have passed, and technology has moved forward, it would be fair to revisit the issue and hold another selection. There are rumors of this being in folk's minds within DoD. We have a different geopolitical situation, and the idea of common ammo seems a joke when the US pays for everything whenever we go to war. We can hardly get NATO to do a damn thing, and the countries that do show up to support our efforts have to lean on us heavily for logistical support. We also have a history of being pretty good at forcing NATO to comply with our selections for standard gear.
My guess (no deep genius here, just looking at what is obviously out there) would be a polymer framed DAO, possibly in another cartridge. I would not be shocked by a move back to 45acp or to a new cartridge like 40s&w. Surprised, but not floored with shock.
I think a safe suggestion to any future entries for such a selection would be to stay away from roll pins and tiny springs in your design. No one wants that.
As for the OP, I read the pdf that was linked here and it is a great read. I really think the Beretta won fair and square. The SIG had slightly better numbers, but both passed all the requirements, and the Beretta came in cheaper, price-wise.
Of course small sample size and such come into play, but you can only test SO many guns within reason. Maybe with another batch of 30 guns, the Beretta comes out on top. Maybe the S&W. Who knows.
I think it just ultimately comes down to people's bias. If you dislike Berettas you are probably more inclined to believe the deal was shady. If you like them (like I admittedly do), you probably don't give much cred to the conspiracy theories.
Of course small sample size and such come into play, but you can only test SO many guns within reason. Maybe with another batch of 30 guns, the Beretta comes out on top. Maybe the S&W. Who knows.
I think it just ultimately comes down to people's bias. If you dislike Berettas you are probably more inclined to believe the deal was shady. If you like them (like I admittedly do), you probably don't give much cred to the conspiracy theories.
R.W.Dale
Member
Exactly.
That three or four trigger pulls you made not realizing you had a dud or hoping beyond hope the round will magically decide to become right on its own just got you KILLED
If it didn't go off the first time chances are EXTREMELY high it wont go off on the 2nd 7th or 244th "double strike"
If its not going off DONT WASTE TIME ON IT! Get it the &+#/ out of your gun post haste.
posted via tapatalk using android.
Two points, RW Dale. First, as discussed above, nobody is suggesting that a shooter knowingly pull the trigger again on a dud round. The point is that, especially in a combat situation, the shooter will have a lag between "firing" a dud and realizing that it was a dud.
The second point is that you assume that a second strike is very unlikely to do anything. I don't know how much it is marketing BS, but I know some manufacturers claim a huge % of dud centerfire rounds will, in fact, ignite with a second strike. Like 75-90%. So, while you're waiting from your brain to realize that you've got a dud, your hands and the gun are already striking it a second time, with a 3-in-4 chance that it will go bang.
Would it be better to immediately clear it? Probably. Is that going to happen? Nope. I dare say that if you pull the trigger on your pistol at the same time an RPG hits the vehicle in front of you, you probably don't have a clue whether the gun fired.
The second point is that you assume that a second strike is very unlikely to do anything. I don't know how much it is marketing BS, but I know some manufacturers claim a huge % of dud centerfire rounds will, in fact, ignite with a second strike. Like 75-90%. So, while you're waiting from your brain to realize that you've got a dud, your hands and the gun are already striking it a second time, with a 3-in-4 chance that it will go bang.
Would it be better to immediately clear it? Probably. Is that going to happen? Nope. I dare say that if you pull the trigger on your pistol at the same time an RPG hits the vehicle in front of you, you probably don't have a clue whether the gun fired.
HoboCoastie
Member
I just argued the other way, but conversly, a misfire in a Glock would be realized immediately on the next trigger squeeze and, noise polluted environment or not, he's going to know he's got a dud.
I have seen rounds fire after a second strike, but I guess I'd rather know immediately that I've got a bad round and rack in a new one. The odds seem better to chamber a new round rather than try to milk out a bang on a bad one.
I have seen rounds fire after a second strike, but I guess I'd rather know immediately that I've got a bad round and rack in a new one. The odds seem better to chamber a new round rather than try to milk out a bang on a bad one.
- Status
