Beretta M9 Service Pistol: Positive “Hatchet-job”?

[1man]

Larry Vickers is a "Real World Combat Spec-Ops" Veteran, he has "Been Their and Done That". I would trust what he says about combat shooting and tactics!

Someone stated before about military personnel not knowing how to properly clean their weapon and someone responded back(I believe it was XDKingslayer) stating they've spent more time cleaning than shooting military weaponary, AMEN Brother. I know your pain, been there too many times I care to admit.

As far as the Beretta, when I was in the Corp we had some M9's that were pieces of crap and some weren't. I've shot those good ones and bad ones.
Before I was issued a M9, one time my Plt. Commander wanted me to do some Close Quarters engagement drills on some targets on one of our Live Fire Squad Assault course. I did a brass check and then started engaging "Ivan" targets. I started to shoot "failure drills" and the slide started to hang up(slide was stopped by the tension of the mag and wouldn't load a fresh round into the chamber, had to be an extremely weak recoil spring). I used my thumb of my support hand to push the slide forward to see if it worked(it did) and shot again(same thing, used my thumb to push the slide forward to load another round). 3-Times-a-Charm,Shot again(same thing). I unload & showed clear and tagged it so the armory could work on it.
Personal experiences;
1. I've spent MANY 10+ hour days cleaning weapons(me and my entire Infantry Platoon & Company)(not trying to be cocky, but no one can tell me anything about cleaning weapons).
2. My partner and I were on the Pistol Qual(standard Qual, not CQB qual) course and he went to do a mag change on that course of fire and the magazine's bottom fell out empting all his rounds on the deck(moral to this is any gun can go wrong at any given time - Improvise, Adapt & Overcome).
3. After leaving USMC 1st & 3rd M.E.F. SOTG CQB course(3 misses or 3 hits on hostage(s) or any combo of the two that equal 3 or failure of 1 C-O-F w/ 80% avg = immediate dismissal) and my platoon & I firing well over 300,000 on the 1st week(it took us days to pick up & seperate every casing we fired after we completed the course), we had all kinds of "unintended" malfuctions and mishaps(several weapons had to be sent back to the armour for barrel replacement because of "rainbow barrels"). We've shot so much our trigger fingers were cramping-up. And the best part about it was that the Staff NCOIC said that SF & DEV-Group's Operations Budget was 3-4 times more than ours and they shot way more than we do! So imagine how many rounds Larry has fired in his 20+ years in SF!
IHO, I'd take his word for it.

 

[Angus Podgorney]

The Beretta was the first of the real ultra-reliable autoloaders, period. Their performance in the military trials was stellar! The guns just wouldn't jam, and that was unprecedented. Even the venerable Colt .45 choked enough to be a miserable failure. The 1911 design was great in its day, but it can't compete against modern designs.

Do you actually believe that? That has got to be one of the most preposterous comments ever. Even for a gun forum.

 

[pdowg881]

Can't anybody just accept they are both great guns and have their pros and cons?

 

[22LongRifle]

Well, I used the M9 in the USAF during 1988-1992. No problems, no complaints. I do believe the Taurus is great also.

A few things though.......if Uncle Sam wanted to save a few bucks, why didn't the Ruger P89 or S&W 3rd Gen (the only STAINLESS STEEL weapon BTW) get the contract?

I remember the "trails" and the gun mags doing their own. If I remember correctly, ALL of the weapons in the "trail" performed on par with each other.

Jerry

 

[Mad Magyar]

if Uncle Sam wanted to save a few bucks, why didn't the Ruger P89 or S&W 3rd Gen (the only STAINLESS STEEL weapon BTW) get the contract?

Jerry, unfortunately these pistols were not developed at the time...IIRC, they appeared in the late 80's.
BTW, back when this was taking place Ruger didn't have the pedigree or set-up to be taken seriously....

 

[Navy joe]

Well what is your point? Should he have said that the M9 was perfect to keep the troops pumped up? I didn't see the article but the points you listed as Vickers having made are valid.

-Not adequately trained in cleaning and maintenance? Yep, the average end user knows to scrub the gun to within an inch of its life, that is it, not enough familiarity to identify broken parts or where and how much to lube. In the Navy I could ask 20 M9 qualified people to point to the slide release and 5 would give me the takedown lever and another 5 would give me the safety. Not the gun's fault, but training is minimal. Maintenance training will get worse now that armorers do not repair weapons. Locking block broke? Box the entire gun up and ship it back to Crane, IN. Too many armorers were supposedly building guns out of poorly controlled spares so now instead of inventorying spares they just don't fix anything.

-Low bidder procurement a problem for something that is supposed to work and last? Yep, the military is often penny-wise and pound foolish. Hence the Checkmate mags.

-Aftermarket mags slipshod? Yep, the Checkmate mags mentioned above are junk. I think the suggestion to load 10 is valid because good luck getting one with 15 in it to run right.

-Maybe he's a whiner, maybe he isn't, but he probably forgot more about fighting pistols while taking a dump this morning than I will ever know.

-Yes any pistol exposed to wartime conditions will have problems. So let's make it better by making the slide and frame dissimilar metals, make it in the minimum fighting caliber, and give it junk mags.

-Not commenting on the last, didn't read the article. My experience with the M9 is this. I shoot 240/240 on the Navy handgun qual which is no great feat especially since they now took the 25 yd portion out, max distance is now 15yds. I carry one every week or so. The mags in a ship's armory I think are loaded when a ship commisions and downloaded when the barge decoms. The ammo is usually pretty old looking and half the mags are Checkmates. Locking blocks are still breaking as the old style stay in the fleet until they are replaced by attrition with the improved locking block. I owned a personal 92FS for several years and it was an very accurate and reliable gun. I kept it very clean and ran only new Beretta mags in it. I cannot justify it for carry as it is bigger, heavier, holds less and has more controls than a Glock 17.

 

[varoadking]

Well what is your point?

There doesn't seem to be one, does there?

 

[Mad Magyar]

I think the suggestion to load 10 is valid because good luck getting one with 15 in it to run right.

Illogical statement not based on statistical data...You actually believe the military procurement regardless of the bidding process will issue mags that are only satisfying 2/3rds of their capacity?

What's the point? Hmmm, let me see....I think it's called "objectivity"...

 

[otomik]

I kept it very clean and ran only new Beretta mags in it. I cannot justify it for carry as it is bigger, heavier, holds less and has more controls than a Glock 17.

I like the MecGar Magazines better than OEM in fact, you should get some of the new 18-round flush fit magazines if you think Beretta is not competitive in capacity.

So let's make it better by making the slide and frame dissimilar metals

That's like a metallurgical necessity to prevent galling, all quality guns should have metals of different hardness for the slide and frame.

While the P226 also qualified in the XM9 trials I don't think it's as rugged as the Beretta (particularly in regard to the earlier stamped metal slides and early finishes).

 

[Roadkill]

I've had about five or six 1911A1s over the years, one Ithaca, one Remington,
three Colts, one Auto Ordnance. All worked great. I have had a Beretta 96 for about seven years. Works great! What do you folks do to get the guns that don't work? They shoot FMJ, HPs, I reload everything now so whatever I get cheapest, been using a lot of Berry's plated bullets, goes down the barrel with no problem. The only consistent jammomatics I've owned in 35 years of shooting (I'm retired Army) were off brand .22s. And AR7 rifles. I just keep them clean and maintained. Had a Luger that wouldn't shoot, had it rebuilt and even it works now.

 

[Navy joe]

Illogical statement not based on statistical data...You actually believe the military procurement regardless of the bidding process will issue mags that are only satisfying 2/3rds of their capacity?

No, it is based on my experience. Checkmate mags suck, they have poor springs at the very least and substandard followers. I have watched them choke with 15. I am an occasional M9 carrier so the best I do is have the armorer give me the beretta mags when I arm up. It is not just me, the pentagon Program executive office that examined individual issue gear in Iraq identified the Checkmate mags as a major weak link. I posted the report a long time ago. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=25767&highlight=PEO+Iraq

Excerpt:
"9mm: There was general dissatisfaction with this weapon. First and
foremost, soldiers do not feel it possesses sufficient stopping power. They
desire a modification to allow for more accurate firing during limited
visibility - tritium on the sight posts was a specific recommendation. The
9mm magazine performed very poorly. Soldiers were stretching the spring in
order to provide sufficient force to feed rounds into the chamber. Soldiers
were not satisfied with the guidance from higher to not stretch the spring
and only load 10 rounds in the 15 round magazine."

That's like a metallurgical necessity to prevent galling, all quality guns should have metals of different hardness for the slide and frame.

No, it is not a necessity. Stainless/Stainless guns and aluminum frame guns have significantly more wear than a steel steel gun if improperly lubed or dirty. I realize that a 1911 for example will have different hardness between slide and frame, that is more to facilitate toughness than to resist wear. As in if the whole frame was hardened it would be more susceptible to cracking.

 

[Confederate]

Confederate those were old 1911s with even the frames worn well beyond their service life competing against factory new pistols if memory serves. The JSSAP trials didn't prove squat about 1911s.

I don't know that that's true at all, but regardless of the JSSAP trials, I've spoken to many, many veterans of World War II and Korea who constantly had problems with service 1911s. They did jam. Whether it was in the cold climate of a North Korean winter or in the hot, humid, jungles of Vietnam or the Philippines. Not only did their rifles jam, their .45s jammed.

Even today, I've yet to see an out-of-the-box 1911 show the bare knuckle dependability of a Beretta 9mm. And it's amazing to see how many people buy 1911s that cost a grand or more and, before shooting a shot, they send them to be customized. If I spent a grand on a pistol, I'd expect it to shoot hundreds and hundreds of rounds without a jam. The 1911 design, however, makes this a difficult proposition next to the modern designs of today's firearms. The Berettas, Smith & Wessons, Glocks, Springfield XDs and Sigs are much more dependable out-of-the-box pistols. The Smith & Wesson 645 could chamber empty cartridges, for example.

 

[USMC Tanker]

Can't anybody just accept they are both great guns and have their pros and cons?

Wise words!

 

[Confederate]

The Beretta was the first of the real ultra-reliable autoloaders, period. Their performance in the military trials was stellar! The guns just wouldn't jam, and that was unprecedented. Even the venerable Colt .45 choked enough to be a miserable failure. The 1911 design was great in its day, but it can't compete against modern designs.

Do you actually believe that? That has got to be one of the most preposterous comments ever. Even for a gun forum.

How can a true statement be preposterous? An average of one malfunction out of almost two thousand is remarkable and I've never seen an out-of-the-box Colt even come close to that. But notice I said "design." Individual issues of this gun can be lemons just like anything else.

Beretta's elimination of a steep ramp to the chamber was one improvement that proved vital; the elimination of an ejection port was another. The 1911 was due for a major overhaul and it mystifies me why nearly all 1911s today are vastly overpriced. The Smith & Wesson 645 (mentioned previously) was very similar in design, plus it was stainless. Double action, it would chamber empty cases and on the firing line it was impeccable, yet it was substantially cheaper than 90 percent of all 1911s available at the time it appeared. Why were the 1911s priced so much more?

 

[HorseSoldier]

How can a true statement be preposterous? An average of one malfunction out of almost two thousand is remarkable and I've never seen an out-of-the-box Colt even come close to that. But notice I said "design." Individual issues of this gun can be lemons just like anything else.

Beretta's elimination of a steep ramp to the chamber was one improvement that proved vital; the elimination of an ejection port was another.

Beretta is just a repackaged Walther P-38 action, it did not revolutionize anything. Its reliability is nothing to brag on compared to other modern, well maintained pistol designs. Add in the mechanical failure rate I see with issue M9s versus, say, Glocks, and it's really just an inferior option to a lot of better pistols out there today.

 

[Angus Podgorney]

The Beretta was the first of the real ultra-reliable autoloaders, period.

So you're saying a gun released in what 75-76? was the first of the real ultra-reliable autoloaders, period.

So for the previous 3/4s of a century no other ultra reliable autoloaders existed? Not even the Walthers? (from which it was derived) BTW, the SIG's did just as well in the trials.

Even the venerable Colt .45 choked enough to be a miserable failure.

Have you ever researched the initial Colt trials?

The 1911 design was great in its day, but it can't compete against modern designs.

Oh but it does compete and is doing very well.

 

[ugaarguy]

The Beretta was the first of the real ultra-reliable autoloaders, period. Their performance in the military trials was stellar! The guns just wouldn't jam, and that was unprecedented. Even the venerable Colt .45 choked enough to be a miserable failure. The 1911 design was great in its day, but it can't compete against modern designs.

Do you actually believe that? That has got to be one of the most preposterous comments ever. Even for a gun forum.

How can a true statement be preposterous?

When it isn't true. The Hi-Power was released in 1935, and it's an incredibly reliable and durable pistol. The Canadians are still carrying their Inglis made HPs.

An average of one malfunction out of almost two thousand is remarkable and I've never seen an out-of-the-box Colt even come close to that.

That's because most 1911s built today, even the Colts, aren't made to the original JMB/USGI specs - go read what 1911Tuner and Old Fuff have to say about this. Even the Springfield "GI" models are good guns despite not being made to full USGI spec - search for 1911Tuner's thread "Spinger thru the wringer".

The 1911 was due for a major overhaul and it mystifies me why nearly all 1911s today are vastly overpriced. The Smith & Wesson 645 (mentioned previously) was very similar in design, plus it was stainless. Double action, it would chamber empty cases and on the firing line it was impeccable, yet it was substantially cheaper than 90 percent of all 1911s available at the time it appeared. Why were the 1911s priced so much more?

1911s are all metal pistols with parts that require more extensive machinework and fitting than more recent designs. Labor, machinework, and materials costs add up.

You know for the 1911 to be such an inferior design it mystifies me as to why the Recon Marines carry it over the standard issue M9, and LAPD SWAT carry it in preference to their department's standard issue Beretta 92. Ohh yeah, and the FBI HRT also carry a variant of that inferior 1911.