So did the army get it right when they picked the M9?

[Carl N. Brown]

Beretta v 1911

My son sold me his 1911 and later bought a Beretta.
He replaced it with a .40 H&K USP and a lot of
bad words about the Beretta: the grip size, shape
and angle simply did not fit his hand. Since most
pistol shooting is off hand and not off sandbags,
ergonomics should be point one in handgun design.
The USP seems to fit him better. He's happier with
it.

Problems with military sidearm: one size cannot fit all
hands and it appears the M9 was a worse fit than the
1911 (as hard as that seems to be).

And I concur that the biggest complaint out of Iraq
has been that the issue magazines are incredibly poor
quality and troops have been asking family to mail them
good beretta magazines, civilian ten shots are preferred
over the military issue mag. I have heard this from two
non-internet sources.

 

[shield20]

Why the constant ranting about muzzle energy?? Its the TERMINAL end we are interested in! The .45 works because IT MAKES A BIGGER HOLE!! Bigger then the 9mm, bigger then the 5.7, the .38, the .40 and all those other smaller rounds. Bigger, and usually deeper too. AND it does all that at around 2/3 the pressure of those "efficient" smaller rounds.

You want more rounds? I don't blame you, especially if you insist on carrying the 9mm. But the grips ARE wider - so are the grips less comfortable for the MAJORITY of users? Those with smaller hands? How 'bout trigger reach - is that ideal for more shooters?

Do you want/need to depend on +P type ammo to be effective? There goes your service life, and some of your recoil benefits.

And yes there are lighter pistols, made of aluminum and such - but will they hold up to the stresses of combat? Are they "butch" enough to last? Does constant maintanance (if needed) become counterproductive? And as weight goes down recoil goes up - suddenly making them less shootable to more users. Hmmm...but 1911s can/have/do benefit from 'modern' materials - if the trade offs were thought to be worth it in a military weapon (it wasn't when the Commander was invented).

There are always other choices - but lets review - the .45 and the 1911 have been proven in ALL conditions - and it has shown over and over, and especially as a military weapon, that it works!

 

[Blacklabman]

I stated in an earlier post that I am not fan of the M9 or the 9mm. I just reread that post and it seems I came off sounding harsh. That was not my intent, and I do apologize.
On the military side, my feelings are this. When lives are on the line. There is no place for 9mm ball.
Our troops are restricted to ball. Give them back the .45ACP. If not the 1911, then some other worthy platform.

 

[Slateman]

Carl, I gotta agree with your son.

The major complaints against the 1911 were

1. The size. Its big, sometimes a little too big, especially when used by female soldiers.

2. Its heavy. Like 2.5lbs unloaded.

3. 7 rounds. Thats not a lot. Granted, the .45 is supposed to have stopping power, but does anyone besides a sniper shoot the bad guy once? Didn't think so.

The M9 is a big hand gun. I thought the advantage of the 9mm was it was small, enabling ammo to be double stacked. But the Beretta felt bigger and more difficult to hold than an 1911. And I'm 6' 1". Its not as heavy as the 1911, but it ain't light either.

I just don't understand why the military doesn't go out and buy a bunch of .45 USPs. Yes its expensive, but how much have we spent on Iraq. Whats another few million bucks? At least this way we would know what we're getting out of it.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[berettashotgun]

Quote,"355sigfan Not a bad plan but load the shotgun with Buck or slugs unless your worried about attacking water foul.
Pat " at a few yards it'll surley put their eyes out get with it-where I live the cops will be here in 2 minutes, not guessing, but know- the stations just down the block and the donut shop is around the corner That said~ I liked the USP 40 because it was the most automatic fit gun I ever have fired.But the 45 in BALL -the required round for use in combat- is far better (or worser) than anything smaller. The trade-offs are worthy of the thread, nobody ever got injured falling into the hole a misplaced 45 left in tthe dirt, and every bit of extra hole in a bad guy helps. Pat, shoot a carbody (abandoned prefferably) at 15 feet with any hevishot load, you'll crap.

 

[355sigfan]

As one who carried a 45 usp I would rather have my Glock17 even if I had to carry ball.
Pat

 

[litework]

This is purely subjective. I think the grip on the Beretta could actually be a little longer. Yet, I prefer my Beretta 92 over any Glock I own. Even worse, I prefer my HK USP .45F over my Beretta, and I like all these icky guns better than anything made by Sig. The back-up quarterback is the most popular player on the team. Sig demonstrates this.

I love 1911s and have far more of these "type" pistols than any other make. Still, I think I'd prefer carrying the Beretta as a sidearm. I think it's a solid choice.

 

[Dennis Alleshouse]

I think the berreta m9 is a fine hand gun but the caliber is very lacking for military use. Just not enough power. the .45 acp is the caliber .

 

[Berettafan21]

355sigfan, that is why I stated that only if the ammo preformed up to par would it be worth considering I have heard nothing either way I will trust you on the rounds terminal preformance.

 

[Wags]

I'm not a huge M9 fan. I've carried it for years and it has never let me down, always went boom and chambered another round. The only downside to the M9 pistol was the old pot-metal magazine base that would break if it hit a hard surface. Not good. And I always thought it was large for a 9mm.

I don't have an answer to this thread question as a replacement pistol since the same question would be asked for that pistol also.

 

[WarMachine]

I just think that hollowpoint ammunition should be allowed if a full blown change is not going to be made. Our local police can use it, but apparantely it's not appropriate for fighting a war

 

[gunfan]

Uhhhh... NO! Bending over backwards to satisfy NATO was a mistake! I'd rather see American service personnel shoot an aggressor twice with a .45, than four times with a 9mm Parabellum.

I repeat myself, at the risk of being redundant, NO!

Scott

 

[penates]

While it will make the glock fans cringe, when a new contract comes along for sidearms glock won't be considered seriously anyway. The end result could very well be a glock winning the testing, but Gaston will never agree to the terms of patent rights required for all US military small arms.

 

[Ed Ely]

Guys, this is a tought one to anwer.

I have said for years, every since the Beretta
was chosen over the Sig, that Beretta was chosen
because of the small hands, such as the females.

I am glad to hear that a requst for solicitation for
propasal has been released most recentlhy for the
review of up two 24 handguns in . .45cal ACP format.

It looks like the Sig could be in the running again in thiis
round of reviews. Look for it to be the winner. For once
the military is getting it right. The men out number the
females and the .45 cal is one great round. Sorry ladies,
you just have to step up to the plate with the big boys.

Ed

 

[Thin Black Line]

I'm issued an M9, but I OWN a 226. That said, there's things I like
and dislike about both. Mags for either weapon are critical. I've
only carried beretta factory mags for the M9 and they've worked
well (crosses fingers). However, I've had german-made factory
mags for the 226 that had problems, too. Just have to test
stuff.

As far as the plastic pistols go....the only people carrying them
in the "combat" zone are those who typically get in and out of
well-padded suburbans. I'm not going to trust plastic being
smashed repeatly against things in an armored environment.
People don't trust plastic mags in their M4s, so why do they trust
them as the combined frame/grip/magwell of the pistol protruding
from the side of their leg that's going to get constantly bumped
out in the field?

Keep the plastic pistols for concealed carry and civilized police
work.

 

[orgdp]

Bertta 951

old dog: saw your gleaming knowledge on beretta pistols and when you mentioned the 951 you really caught my eye. mine has all the beretta writing on the slide and grips but the back strap is straight ,not curved like a helwan. the grips also have 2 screws per grip opposed to the helwans 1. the slide does have the egyptian crest. if i'm not mistaken the slide says model(o?) 951 and then 1955.it needs new grips and the sheet metal magazine latch at the bottom but parts seem to be as scarce as the pistols. can you shed any history on this?

 

[orgdp]

SHOOT THE THING SA ALL DAY LONG

i thought they were both SA after the first shot.

 

[MrZ]

"So did the army get it right when they picked the M9?"

Not no, but HELL no!

 

[Ivy Mike]

The army did OK although I'd still say the Sig is the better gun. Too bad Ruger didn't get in with a better weapon and Colt didn't make it. I'd much rather give taxpayer dollars to American companies. The Beretta was a good choice for the time although the S&W sounds better, and is an American company. Guess that doesn't matter to our brass as our troops carry Italian handguns, Belgian rifles and Belgian machine guns. The 1911 was basically done and would have required a similar amount of money to re-issue new guns to the entire fighting force. Maybe some money could have been saved by melting the steel from the old ones to recycle, but you're still dealing with a 70y/o weapon (at the time) with low capacity and SAO.

For all the fuss over over which caliber is better, you can keep your 9mm and your bloated .45.
Our military needs to adopt 10mm auto. Its only 0.05" smaller than the .45, carries more energy, penetrates better and gives higher capacity. Should we ever ditch the Hague convention, 10mm provides better expansion as well with its higher velocity and energy.

 

[Geronimo45]

Haven't read the whole thread, so this could be a repeat.

The military doesn't use pistols that often. Soldiers are usually toting automatic rifles. If they change pistols, I'd say to go for the Mk23 SOCOM, and issue silencers to everybody with one.

For going into small tunnels and various holes and tight quarters, a pistol would be awfully nice. I think a 1911's great, and I think .45 ACP is great. If I had a choice for clearing tunnels, I'd pick one with a silencer or a 9mm with HP ammo.

There's the need to use a pistol when you've run out of rifle ammo. Don't think the difference in effective range of .45 ACP versus 9mm should be a problem in most situations.

It would help a lot if they'd issue a good HP round for the 9. If they want better armor penetration, get a 5.7. That way I can get one and afford to shoot it.

Don't think we should complain too much about NATO and it's ammo desires. Didn't the US decide we needed .223 for NATO? Might as well let the little brothers have their say.

 

[MCgunner]

The Beretta is a HUGE gun which is kinda stupid, but don't make a lot of difference in a military handgun I guess. I don't think it's a bad gun. I would have preferred, though, that the American military had acquired an American company's sidearm. Ruger was late to the scene, but S&W had a viable entry. But, whatever, ain't my call anyway.

What I wonder is just how long will the M16 serve???? It's beginning to look as if it'll rival the 1911. I guess the M2 will never die, though.

It would help a lot if they'd issue a good HP round for the 9.

Ever hear of Geneva????

SHOOT THE THING SA ALL DAY LONG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i thought they were both SA after the first shot.

Yeah, if you don't have a thumb. But, of course, side arms are properly carried condition three in the military, right?

 

[Geronimo45]

If we can violate Geneva at Gitmo or wherever else (supposedly do, not sure whether it's true or no), why can't we violate the Hague when it involves saving our soldiers' lives?

Don't really see how a HP in COM would be any more cruel than plugging somebody in the crotch with a .223.

 

[10-Ring]

At the time, it was an appropriate decision. Today, there might be better choices, but it's really a mute point since our military will be using this pistol for a good while to come.

 

[thumper723]

I am a pilot. Issue weapon is a M11. I like the SIG design, but I am not a fan of the 9mm. If they make us follow the Hauge requirements, I want the biggest hole since I must use FMJ.

On 2 deployments, I carried a pistol in 45ACP. First cruise, Ships CO would not allow "personal" weapons. We bought P220s, and he was not the wiser. Second cruise, CO was a gun nut, and allowed ANYTHING, with any ammo you wanted. However, he was adamant that if you were caught with anything but 9mm FMJ off his ship, you were on your own. I carried a Springfield Armory HiCap 1911. I'll take the 2 less rounds for 45 over 9. Since we must carry in Condition 3, with the M11, P220, and 1911, time to get into action is the same for all. Its not like the decocker helps us by having one in the pipe.

Possiby going back to the box, and am wondering how to bring a .45 this time.

Most of us who shoot outside of the every other year pistol qual prefer the 45 as a round, since we are limited to FMJ.

 

[Autolycus]

I would like to see the Military compromise. Go with a .40 S&W gun. A Glock 22 (not my choice), an HK USP Fullsize (my choice), a Sig 226, or some other decent gun in .40. I think the round is ideally what the military is looking for. Its bigger than the 9mm but smaller than the .45. It has the high-cap and the stopping power. And it fits into a 9mm size gun.