Two of the most accomplished pistolsmiths and handgun experts in the world, Bill Wilson and Ernest Langdon, generally approve of the platform, including a recent Langdon class in which 11 92s of varying types, all straight out of the box, ran over 11,000 rounds without a single issue of any type, but I suppose your assertion of mediocrity...
You'll find any "handgun experts" that will vouch for your favorite brand if you find hard enough. That means nothing.
From a modern pistol stand point, 11000 rounds is nothing to be impressed about. So, a brand new brand name pistol withstood a few day course?
Hey, wait a minute. I don't know of any pistol training course, other than a special force training, that each person shoot 11000 rounds for a class. Are you talking 11000 rounds from each pistol, or 11000 rounds combined from all 11 pistols?
...without a single iota of data is something, too.
It seems that you have no problem with that since you don't know what data I do or do not have.
The last unit I was attached to had about 30% in the inventory that was malfunctioning.
...Objective analysis of modern war will show plain as day that the pistol has clearly become less relevant, certainly less relevant than many other things that could use the money.
...
That's your subjective analysis. Things do not become objective simply because you say so.
Whether if pistol is relevant or not totally depends on type of conflict. If it's a door to door, cave to cave infantry battle, then it is relevant. If it's a tank battle, then it is not relevant. But, how many M1 Abrams do you see doing house searches?
Special forces soldiers carry pistols, and it is certainly not because they feel they need a "badge of office."
If you think pistol is not relevant, then why don't you advocate getting rid of them alltogether?
A number of my own combat veteran acquaintances asserted that they never even touched their handguns outside out training and maintenance.
I never touched an MLRS while in the army, and never requested fire mission from them while on theater either, but I would not say they are irrelevant.
Also, not to step on any toes, but military/police experience = / = firearms expertise. My 3-tour U.S. Marine friend went on a tirade about how much he liked his XD9 because it was made in America. Was stunned when I explained HS Produkt and the HS2000. Military service isn't proof of weapons knowledge or flaws of certain weapon systems. It's admirable, and should be considered, but it's not proof by itself.
You're presenting a false dillema, implying that one is either an expert or nothing.
Being a soldier or cop does not make one an expert on everything gun related.
However, it DOES make them a credible source on what they have experienced, and it DOES make them an expert on what they are trained on.
I have used M9. I have seen it malfunction. Altough I was not given training on it on my first tour, I was trained on it on my second tour.
Please tell me why a handgun, again, a nearly vestigial weapon in the modern war zone, is more important than funding things like improved communication gear.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said one was more important than the other.
I did say buying an off the shelf pistol with a manufacturing cost and maintenance cost lower than M9 would not have any significant financial impact on availability on critical communications equipment.
I was in line infantry, and I never remember there being a radio shortage. I do not ever remember a body armor shortage either. Sure, there were some brand some soldiers were raving over, thinking it was better than the issued ones. But, reason we did not get those was not because of money shortages. It was because Army would not approve them, even if solders wanted to pay out of their own pocket.
Also tell me how any gun on the market is a marked improvement over the 92. I would put a 92, cleaned and lubed out of the box, against literally any pistol on the market in terms of reliability. HK P30, Glock 17, M&P, any other gun, I'd bet the 92 would run as reliably or more reliably.
Also, if you'd care to do so, provide some evidence of the 92's mediocrity. Something other than a tiny handful of cracked slides from decades ago, cheap magazine issues that were rectified years ago, or jamming issues any pistol highly past its service window would not suffer.
Edit: For spelling
My gripe has nothing to do with SEAL slide incident or Checkmate magazine fiasco.
You only mention reliability, as if that's the only factor. New service pistol shoudl look at the totality, which includes training and cost.
Here's a short incomplete list of why I think newer pistols would serve better:
- Glock/M&P types are more easier to train with. They also provide no less reliabliity with less manufacture and maintenance cost.
- M9's baked on type finish flaked off. It would not have happened as easily with Tenifer or Melonite type finish available on Glock or M&P.
- Any armorer will attest that Glock or M&P will be easier to maintain and more simple than M9.
- Beretta also has small parts that are prone to wear, such as springs on the slide lever. That is impossible to happen with Glock or M&P since they do not have the slide lever.
- Newer pistols have far better trigger reach, improving accuracy and training ease for smaller size soliders.
. Having small parts break in harsh or demanding conditions is a bugger too. 
