M9 and US Service Pistols

[gvf]

The best gun and caliber to Carry is not the gun with the highest caliber you can shoot well at the range. If that were the case I would still have my compact Glock 45.

But I won't be at the range in an SD emergency. So I traded the Glock + some cash for:

I picked a caliber (9mm) and a gun (92FS) I that I would likely be able to shoot adequately on the worst shooting day of my life or one that I could even imagine would be the worst:
because that will likely be the case for me in an SD crisis.

So, more than half of the things I do well at the range may well not be available to me on the street some night. But even so I think I could still shoot the Beretta with some accuracy in repeated quick shots - where i think it may be curtains with the compact 45 under the same conditions.

That's why I Carry the Beretta - and rotate with a snub (which I think I could also shot decently in the middle of the horror of a crisis).

The range is the range. The street is the street.

 

[USAF_Vet]

USAF Vet, do guys carrying the M240 or such carry a sidearm? When I was an SP it was not common practice and was actually something I had to fight for.

No, squad auto gunners, be it 240 or 249 didn't carry a sidearm that I saw. MPs and SF were pretty much always allowed to carry a side arm, but many opted not to.

I was manning an M-2 most of the time, and yet I still had my M-4 and M-9. The guns were on my orders as may issue, so I went to the armory and picked them up. Had to show them my qualification card, but it was no hassle and no questions asked.

 

[Grynch31b]

It's Marine, capitalized.

I'm a career Marine, and I've been issued and used a pistol on every one of my deployments. So has every one of my teammates.

Your last paragraph is part of the point I wanted to make. When you are patrolling and dealing with curious or sometimes aggressive locals, a pistol shows authority and commands respect and compliance from those people. I'll take a reduction in the need to fire my weapon any day. When you need information from someone they are more likely to give it out when they respect your position. A pistol shows that, much the same way as us telling them we are officers when dealing with them.

As far as the realities of modern warfare? I don't know your level of experience with "warfare" as opposed to the training qualifications you listed. As I said before, I was issued a pistol and I used it often while deployed. That's my experience, not I saw this guy with a pistol or those guys didn't have one. The guys that actually see the enemy every day, are almost always issued a pistol, to be quite honest.

I think I'm about done with this one. Enjoy your night and enjoy disagreeing with me.

I believe in reference to isc, it is also "Soldier".
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,122303_Soldier,00.html


There's quite a bit of opinionated comments with some of your posts, which although that's what a forum is for, its rather frustrating. isc, you said so yourself. You taught 11B BNCOC. 31B BNCOC might not include demo and put more of an emphasis on the M9. As for WLC... would I be incorrect in the notion that this is the preemptive course for up and coming E-4 moving to E-5 team leaders...? There would be no emphasis on M9's there, or lesser of one, and more of an emphasis on being a leader. Oh, and just so we're clear, I have yet to ever do any of these: "garrison duties, guarding unarmed prisoners, or hassling grunts they actually had rifles".

As for the OP: I carried an M9 on my deployment, as well as an M249. Didn't care for either, I trusted the 240 on top of the truck more than all of those.

A little more input, as far as that goes.. I guess in my experience one could say that I have a distrust of the M9/92FS because my experience comes from the military. Someone else already shed light on that: it's community property that most don't give two *#@!s about. They get beat to hell, malfunction, etc. Sure, send it to the armorer, but he'll kick it back if the soldier who sends it to him didn't even to -10 level maintenance, which probably could've corrected any issues. On the civilian side, a privately owned 92FS is going to be well maintained and the owner is actually going to care about keeping it in decent condition. Just in terms of the experiences I've had, though, I'll never own one.

Edit: forgot to also mention the time old thing I've heard from my time serving. "Lowest bidder". Someone also already said it.. is it the best sidearm out there? Absolutely not. It is the best sidearm for the best price that the military approved for purchasing.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I believe in reference to isc, it is also "Soldier".
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,122303_Soldier,00.html


There's quite a bit of opinionated comments with some of your posts, which although that's what a forum is for, its rather frustrating. isc, you said so yourself. You taught 11B BNCOC. 31B BNCOC might not include demo and put more of an emphasis on the M9. As for WLC... would I be incorrect in the notion that this is the preemptive course for up and coming E-4 moving to E-5 team leaders...? There would be no emphasis on M9's there, or lesser of one, and more of an emphasis on being a leader. Oh, and just so we're clear, I have yet to ever do any of these: "garrison duties, guarding unarmed prisoners, or hassling grunts they actually had rifles".

As for the OP: I carried an M9 on my deployment, as well as an M249. Didn't care for either, I trusted the 240 on top of the truck more than all of those.

A little more input, as far as that goes.. I guess in my experience one could say that I have a distrust of the M9/92FS because my experience comes from the military. Someone else already shed light on that: it's community property that most don't give two *#@!s about. They get beat to hell, malfunction, etc. Sure, send it to the armorer, but he'll kick it back if the soldier who sends it to him didn't even to -10 level maintenance, which probably could've corrected any issues. On the civilian side, a privately owned 92FS is going to be well maintained and the owner is actually going to care about keeping it in decent condition. Just in terms of the experiences I've had, though, I'll never own one.

Hence my question of whether his use of the term was implying a member of the Army, or a member of the military.

Whose posts are quite a bit opinionated? I speak to my experiences and my thoughts on those experiences, as opposed to what I saw or heard about others doing. I don't see how me or anyone else giving their opinion could be frustrating.

 

[Grynch31b]

Hence my question of whether his use of the term was implying a member of the Army, or a member of the military.

Whose posts are quite a bit opinionated? I speak to my experiences and my thoughts on those experiences, as opposed to what I saw or heard about others doing. I don't see how me or anyone else giving their opinion could be frustrating.

Yours are fine. I was referring to isc. He seems to be speaking down on all other aspects of the military, as if one isn't 11B in the army, they're a lesser being.

 

[stiletto raggio]

It is very much in vogue for Mall Ninjas to bag on the Beretta as inferior to HK (or hwatever else) and for "old school" guys to talk aobut how the 1911 was so much better. Bottom line, we needed to get in line with NATO standards. People were going to rag on whatever 9mm the military picked, and the Beretta was it. I will say that the M9s we get are often abused and are not nearly as nice to shoot as my personal pistols.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Yours are fine. I was referring to isc. He seems to be speaking down on all other aspects of the military, as if one isn't 11B in the army, they're a lesser being.

Gotcha. It doesn't bother me one bit. I'm not infantry, but I can say with certainty I've seen more combat than most infantry ever will. I worked with them in Iraq and Afghanistan and conducted pre-deployment marksmanship training for infantry and Recon(admittedly limited) guys as well. It's always fun to see the look on some grunt's face when he learns that the guy who just got done teaching him how to fight a war is a "POG".

Not only do I get to do their job on patrol, I get to do mine as well. Makes for a good time if you ask me.

 

[Beat Trash]

The Beretta 92fs/M9 is a good gun. It does have some drawbacks to the design, but then so does every design out there. No matter what gun you chose, be aware of it's strengths and weaknesses. Work around them and go on.

The important thing is to carry the gun you train with and are the most familiar with. The OP's story about his Army Ranger buddy carrying a 92fs because it was what he was used to carrying is a perfect example. If he had spent a career carrying a 1911 or a Sig 226, then his choice of carry gun might change a bit.

What one should NOT do is chose a carry gun just because it's someone else's choice. Choosing a defensive carry gun is a personal thing, like choosing a wife. Just because your buddy has a redhead, should you dump your blond? (all other things being equal...)

Berettas are excellent guns. I own two of them. I don't carry them only because I'm issued and train with S&W M&P's. If it's your choice, train well, train hard, and move on.

 

[Rob96]

No, squad auto gunners, be it 240 or 249 didn't carry a sidearm that I saw. MPs and SF were pretty much always allowed to carry a side arm, but many opted not to.

I was manning an M-2 most of the time, and yet I still had my M-4 and M-9. The guns were on my orders as may issue, so I went to the armory and picked them up. Had to show them my qualification card, but it was no hassle and no questions asked.

When I first started out at Clark AB in the Phillippines when we pulled gunner with the
M60, the pig was all we had. I arged that if the gun went down, we had nothing. They finally saw it my way and allowed us to check out our M9 if we wanted. It was common place that when we patrolled the perimeter we would get bombarded with garbage from the locals. One day when I was in the turret in stead of garbage it was very large rocks. One hit my M60 mount and broke it sending my gun flying off of the top of the hummer. I was thankful to have my M9 available and in my hand when I dismounted to go and find the M60.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Rob96, that was why I opted for the extra firearms. Ma deuce is a great regulator, but during a dismount, the M-4 was it. And I've seen enough of them malf to want every weapon I had available, just in case.

FWIW, the M9/92FS is a decent gun. The ones we had in the USAF were most likely hand me downs from the Army, like a lot of our fire arms. They were not properly maintained, being that it belonged to someone else; you get to shoot for free and toss it at the armorer for maintenance. A lot of that maintenance was pencil whipped. Someone else said that a personally owned fire arm would be in much better shape over all, and I tend to agree.

 

[DesertVet]

I used the M-9 for 10 years in the US Army. I carried it in addition to a rifle. I carried an M-9 in a coupleof combat zones during three deployments. I carried the M-9 while doing high risk protective details, counter-terrorism operations, force protection operations, I trained US and allied troops to use the M-9, I carried it while protecting people in some of the most dangerous places on the planet and while operating in very remote forward areas.
I prefer other sidearms that I have used but the M-9 will perform the mission it is supposed to if properly maintained.
During my civilian Law Enforcement career I have also used the Beretta 92FS and it has performed it's intended role well. I have trained on & used many different Military / Law Enforcement sidearms in real world Military applications as well as Protective Security and law enforcement assignments. The M-9 or Beretta 92 FS is a tool I would not hesitate to protect my life or the lives of those close to me with again.

 

[DesertVet]

I used the M-9 for 10 years in the US Army. I carried it in addition to a rifle. I carried an M-9 in a coupleof combat zones during three deployments. I carried the M-9 while doing high risk protective details, counter-terrorism operations, force protection operations, I trained US and allied troops to use the M-9, I carried it while protecting people in some of the most dangerous places on the planet and while operating in very remote forward areas.
I prefer other sidearms that I have used but the M-9 will perform the mission it is supposed to if properly maintained.
During my civilian Law Enforcement career I have also used the Beretta 92FS and it has performed it's intended role well. I have trained on & used many different Military / Law Enforcement sidearms in real world Military applications as well as Protective Security and law enforcement assignments. The M-9 or Beretta 92 FS is a tool I would not hesitate to protect my life or the lives of those close to me with again.

 

[Rob96]

Rob96, that was why I opted for the extra firearms. Ma deuce is a great regulator, but during a dismount, the M-4 was it. And I've seen enough of them malf to want every weapon I had available, just in case.

Great minds think alike. During the coup attempt of '89 I had the M60, my M16 as well as my M9. This was along with grenadier with the 203 mounted M16, M16's for the other two fire team members and LAWs rockets.

 

[Rob96]

The ones we had in the USAF were most likely hand me downs from the Army, like a lot of our fire arms.

Probably not. When I first got in we were just transitioning to the M9 and they were all new. As with anything I experienced in the Air Force, things just recycled. While at Clark I had a vietnam era M16. We never got new vehicles, all our vehicles were hand me downs from mostly nuke bases.

 

[DesertVet]

I carried the 9mm in a couple of combat zones. Luckily I also had an M-4 carbine with M-203 40mm Grenade launcher attached and an abundance of fragmentation grenades. We had 50 Cal machine guns, MK 19s, M-240B, M-60s, M-249 SAWs, AT4s, LAWs, and pump shotguns. We operated in remote areas usually in a six man element. Still always carried the M-9.

 

[DesertVet]

I used the M-9 for 10 years in the US Army. I carried it in addition to a rifle. I carried an M-9 in a coupleof combat zones during three deployments. I carried the M-9 while doing high risk protective details, counter-terrorism operations, force protection operations, I trained US and allied troops to use the M-9, I carried it while protecting people in some of the most dangerous places on the planet and while operating in very remote forward areas.
I prefer other sidearms that I have used but the M-9 will perform the mission it is supposed to if properly maintained.
During my civilian Law Enforcement career I have also used the Beretta 92FS and it has performed it's intended role well. I have trained on & used many different Military / Law Enforcement sidearms in real world Military applications as well as Protective Security and law enforcement assignments. The M-9 or Beretta 92 FS is a tool I would not hesitate to protect my life or the lives of those close to me with again.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

But the sidearm issued to any given military organization isn't really important, it isn't their primary weapon and they don't have to pay for the gun, ammo, or repairs. Just because some Army Ranger got handed a free gun, got to shoot it with free ammo, and had an armorer to do all the preventative and corrective maintenance it might need doesn't mean it is a good gun for anyone in particular.

lol!

 

[kwelz]

Friend of mine got back from Iraq about 6 months ago. He was talking about the M9 and told me he felt it was great. If his M4 ever needed to be reloaded he thought the M9 was heavy enough to distract the enemy if he threw it at them. But as an actual handgun or defensive weapon he wasn't so fond of it. Far to fragile and temperamental.

 

[Ash]

"Just because some Army Ranger got handed a free gun, got to shoot it with free ammo, and had an armorer to do all the preventative and corrective maintenance it might need doesn't mean it is a good gun for anyone in particular."

Now, I understand your point. However, this "some Army Ranger" is a friend of mine who has been there, done that, and I have tremendous respect for him. Don't dismiss his contributions nor his knowledge nor his experience. He can and probably has done more and made greater use of small arms than the vast majority here, including me.

He owns and uses a Beretta 92FS now and trusts it. I'm not a big Beretta fan, but I can acknowledge it is a good arm.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Ash,
I would buy a Beretta 92FS over most any other gun in the price range because of my familiarity with the weapon. Best, better, worse and worst all all subjective and based soley with the operators experience. I have a buddy that carries a Sig P226, 80's vintage. He swaers by that gun up and down. I don't disagree that it isn't a good gun, it is. But I prefer the 92FS.

I wouldn't be surprised if your Ranger friend made his 92FS purchase for the exact same reason as I would. Familiarity goes a long way when it comes to comfort in handling a firearm.

 

[tahunua001]

Lots of "I saw this soldier doing that, or that sailor doing this".

haha true enough, I volunteered several times, my chain of command always said that I was too much of the "Gomer Pyle" type to trust with a live firearm. I actually had to pay out of pocket to take the m16 and m9 qual courses. so thats why there is lots of "say someone do this" and "this guy did that":banghead::banghead:

so all the information I provided is second hand, asside from the stuff about security forces, anyone that's even driven near a naval base can see what the ATFP guys at the gate are packing

 

[Rob96]

If I didn't have so many years into shooting the Glock, I would be invested in the 92FS. I still go into shops and hold 92's and think if I should just go ahead and switch. They have such a great feel in the hand.

 

[SpentCasing]

If I didn't have so many years into shooting the Glock, I would be invested in the 92FS. I still go into shops and hold 92's and think if I should just go ahead and switch. They have such a great feel in the hand.

Give it a try. Contrary to what the Glock fanboys will tell it is perfectly fine to own/enjoy other pistols. No need to "switch". Variety is the spice of life! lol

 

[starbuck]

If I didn't have so many years into shooting the Glock, I would be invested in the 92FS. I still go into shops and hold 92's and think if I should just go ahead and switch. They have such a great feel in the hand.

I work on my fair share of Glocks. I carry a Beretta.
Personal preference.

 

[Grynch31b]

Now, I understand your point. However, this "some Army Ranger" is a friend of mine who has been there, done that, and I have tremendous respect for him. Don't dismiss his contributions nor his knowledge nor his experience. He can and probably has done more and made greater use of small arms than the vast majority here, including me.

He owns and uses a Beretta 92FS now and trusts it. I'm not a big Beretta fan, but I can acknowledge it is a good arm.

Kind of what I was getting at. To know more on the quote you paraphrased, I'd have to talk to some people (because, although armorers are out there, at least in my experience, I've never handed any of the rifles or pistols I've been assigned to my unit armorer to have preventative and corrective maintenance done on it. Most issues with most firearms that I've seen are all limited to the lowest level of maintenance, except the occasional rarities. Saw the extractor on an M249 blow up last month.. getting the live round out of the chamber was quite a challenge with all the pieces in there with it).

I guess more to the point I was trying to make and what everyone else is making.. personal preference. Although it seems on the civilian market the M9 is a quality piece.. because of my experience with the M9 through the military I've been turned off by Beretta and the M9.

@SnowBlaZeR2: I'm not infantry, either. I've spent the latter portion of my contract debating a reenlistment and MOS change.. to 11B. For now, I'm just extending as MP..