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

[CornCod]

Back

Back in the eighties, the military should have adopted the M-1911 in 9mm for the purposes of NATO standarization. This would have simplified training issues. Commando type units should adopt sidearms that fit their unique requirements. Military pilots should be issued J-frame stainless Smith and Wessons in 9mm with the funny little clips.

 

[Ivy Mike]

CornCod,
While adopting the 1911 in 9mm wouldn't be a terrible idea, it would still cost around the same amount as adopting a new weapon. The 1911s we had were pretty worn out at that point and would have required replacement anyway.
Why not avail yourself of better, more modern guns?

 

[TECH79]

i think the coasties are using the 40 cal now.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Oddly enough, all of the ex-army guys I know, including a couple who were in Desert Storm, own their own Beretta 9mms for personal use.

 

[slicknickns]

Would the military ever put an interest into the .40 or 357SIG?

 

[Josh Aston]

Trying to go to the .40 or .357 Sig would be a logistical nightmare.

Me personally I have no problem with the M9, fits my hands like a glove and I shoot it more accurately than any other DA handgun. And for the Air Force, going from the S&W M10 with 130gr FMJ, it was a definite step up in power. But then the M16 was a step up in power for the Air Force also.

And yes the Coast Gaurd is using .40 now. But only for their peacetime mission. During peacetime the Coast Gaurd is not part of the Department of Defense, they fall under the Department of Justice. The CG guys deployed to the Middle East are still using the M9.

 

[Ivy Mike]

John Aston, the Coast Guard is now under the Department of Homeland Surveil...uh...Security.

it wouldn't be a logistical nightmare to switch to .40 or .357SIG (a bad choice IMHO) provided the entire military standardized on that round. As that isn't going to happen any time soon, its a moot point.
Supplying ammo would be no more difficult than it is now.

 

[bcochran]

plain and simple

I am quite sure that there were very good reasons for selection of a weapon system that has the thumb upsweep the safety to get it "off" and that also has a double action first shot.

I am also sure that there were good reasons for the selection of the 9 mm round and a grip that requires large hands.

Those reasons are unimportant to me.

My only concern is what works for me. Those features don't.

 

[Hux]

"My only concern is what works for me. Those features don't."

I'm with you on that one. I can't stand my M9. Nor can anyone else in my unit (we all have an M9 and either M16 or M4). Many ppl I know don't even take their M9 out on patrol. Sucks that the Army won't let us carry personal weapons over here.

 

[1911 guy]

Most folks agree with you.

Many people agree that the combination of features on the M-9 is an ill fit for them. Frankly, I'm also of the opinion that many who claim to like the M-9 have never been exposed to a handgun that does fit them properly. They figure if it works, it must be the best. For somebody out there with hands the size of a baseball glove, it would be best. For the rest of us, it's adequate, but not good.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

My oldest son served in Desert Storm.
He bought a .45 Colt 1911.

 

[jwalk]

On my last deployment, I'm an aircrew member, three of our crew took our magazines out of our M-9's and started taking the bullets out of them. After we took out 2 or 3 every one of our magazines failed to feed. Needless to say none of us had much confidence in the M-9. Every time I have gone to the range to qualify with it I have had a malfunction. I have had casings lodged in the slide in ways I have never seen before. My crew and I are not experts and we never were in a situation where we would likely need our weapon (we are airforce), but we all shoot on our own. None of us have rushed out and bought an M-9.

 

[JohnKSa]

After we took out 2 or 3 every one of our magazines failed to feed. Needless to say none of us had much confidence in the M-9.

Your mistrust was misplaced.

The problem is Checkmate Magazines and the procurement folks that decided Beretta factory magazines were too expensive for our boys.

 

[kir_kenix]

i dont much care for the m9, it is big and heavy and kind of unweildly (for a 9mm) for me. ill tell you right now tho, a gun that i would be more comfortable with, alot of other soldiers wouldnt be. when you choose one gun for the whole darn military, that means that there are going to be a few who love it, most will tolerate it, and a few that hate it. you arnt going to be able to please everyone. i would perfer that we carry either .40 or .45. i dont much care for the 9mm round. and yes, the magazines that the military issues are freaking terribly, especially if they get even the least bit dirty. I think that as a whole it makes a pretty decent sidearm for the military, but i wouldnt be opposed to a change before i get sent overseas.

 

[Cliff47]

I may have missed this in an earlier posting, but what was the benchmark pistol for the selection competition (assuming there was one)? I know there were selection criteria, but was there a specific pistol to compare against?

 

[p35]

No benchmark; the military just said "we want a pistol with these specifications" and invited anyone interested to send in twenty examples for testing. S&W made a big fuss claiming that they got cheated on the test for how hard the firing pin hit the primer; I don't recall all the details now.

 

[mljdeckard]

I've mentioned this before, perhaps on about page three of this thread, I was an armorer in Germany. In 1992, we switched out our 1911A1's of various manufacture during WWII for 87 Berettas new in cosmoline. We had ALL KINDS of problems with Berettas. Trigger springs, double-action failures, besides the magazine problems. There were reports of slides cracking, but this was later solved, and none of mine were ever shot enough to reach that problem. I remembered thinking, "Will these pistols still be in service 40+ years from now?"

A military sidearm is a weapon of desperation. If you are actually defensively engaging the enemy and you are down to your pistol, you are in serious trouble. You need absolute reliability, and a round that will actually solve your problems.

I would rather be issued a vintage 1911A1, requisition a new barrel a new barrel and bushing and carry it to war, than be stuck with a Beretta.

The gun I carry every day is exactly what I would want. Kimber Custom II, Novak sights, Hogue wrap-arounds, arched mainspring housing with lanyard loop, conventional plunger and guide rod. And as someone else stated above, we aren't allowed to carry personal weapons.

I can live with a Beretta. I DO love the way it shoots, and I CAN make it work just fine. But it's really too bulky for a 9mm, I still truly think, if they want to pretend to follow the Hague Accords and NATO, and use 115 gr, 9mm fmj, the most brutally reliable, lightweight, IDIOT PROOF, high-capicity, absolutely will fire every time pistol for 19 year old medics and 'other personnel who only need a defensive weapon', with varying backgrounds is a Glock 17.