BSA- I would be happy to explain the M9's shortcomings, all you had to do was ask. And for the record, the Glock is MY preferred sidearm, but I also believe the S&W M&P would be an excellent choice for the entire force, as I understand that the needs of the military are greater and more varied than my personal tastes, or the tastes of those in the units I formally served in. The first problem is the basic system of operation- transitional DA. This means that the concept of consistency is out the window, in relation to the trigger. Entire modules of training could be eliminated from POI's that are just dedicated to the integrated act of firing the first (DA) shot (we call it a presentation shot) and transitioning to the subsequent (SA) shots. With a striker fired system like the Glock OR S&W, that entire step is eliminated. This translates to consistency, which can be converted into speed and accuracy, not to mention the requirement to engage the off switch/decock in order to re-holster. Another major issue is parts breakage, specifically the locking block (which was copied from the WW2 German P38). This little gem fails on a frequent basis on the M9 pistol. While the mechanism helps in recoil management, it isn't reliable. It has been updated 3 times in design while I was in the service- not a widely known fact, and the change was recorded as a change to a part number- not a "generation" like Glock does. They continue to fail. I personally had 3 fail on me. As an instructor, I had to keep a plastic box full of them range side, and I frequently had to have that box reloaded by the armament section as I ran out of locking blocks. I did notice when Beretta developed the storm pistol, they decided to forgo the "proven locking system of the M9". In some SOF units, another "fix" (update?) was the replacement of stock slide assemblies and slide stops with those heavier ones originally made for the "brigadier" model. It was thought that this might alleviate the epidemic of locking block and slide failures we were continuing to experience. The slides did well, and they came with nice tritium sights, but the locking blocks continued to fail. It was so bad and so unpredictable, that prior to any deployment ALL locking blocks were replaced- at unit cost of $65 each, if memory serves. The DA trigger and controls of the M9 are difficult for "smaller" users to manipulate. Remember that about 14% of our force are females. During immediate action drills for malfunctions, the off switch is often inadvertently activated when wearing gloves, or when the user's hand(s) are wet. Considering that the idea of this drill is to get a pistol back into action in the middle of an active gunfight after a mechanical malfunction, clearing the malfunction and ending up with your weapon on SAFE is what we commonly refer to as BAD. Instructors call it a dead man's gun. Due to the semi-exposed trigger bar spring (located under the right grip) it is considered unsafe to replace the stock grips with rubber replacements for comfort or to aid in "gripability" because aftermarket grips made of rubber can contract in the extreme temperatures routinely encountered in combat. This contraction can result in the trigger bar spring becoming disengaged, and thus rendering the pistol inoperable. The only feasible alternative is to slip sections of bicycle inner tube rubber over the grip. This is also a common mod done to pistols like the Glock and MK23. The M9 pistol has been found to be especially sensitive to fine particulate matter (also known as dust). Strict and meticulous cleaning schedules must be adhered to in order to keep it functioning, even if it has not been fired. The magazines issued with the M9 pistol have also proven to be problematic. They are especially sensitive to dust, and the inside surfaces are quickly stripped of their finish due to friction from the spring rubbing them raw during normal use. This results in rapid onset corrosion, also requiring them to be disassembled and cleaned to prevent rounds from binding. While aftermarket mags have proven the least reliable, OEM mags still exhibit these effects, although typically at a slower rate. General QC appears to also be an issue with OEM mags. I have personally identified variations in spring lengths as much as 3" after disassembling brand new OEM magazines from the same box of mags. When performing routine maintenance, the practice of removing the grips to remove fine particulate matter must be done with caution. Inadvertent/unknown loss of 1 or more grip screw washer(s) will result in the grip screws over-travelling into the magazine well of the pistol when it is re-assembled. This will cause the magazine to be "locked" in, and difficult to remove without a prying tool, thereby making a reload in combat impossible. The remedy for this is for armorers and weapons sgts to apply a product like crazy glue in the screw holes, and permanently glue the washers into the grips to prevent loss. Crazy glue. In our guns. Existing supplies of M9 pistols lack accessory rails to facilitate the attachment of lights for use in low light conditions (these low light conditions occur about 50% of the time on our planet- daily-like clockwork). The only remedy for this (absent replacement of the entire weapon with another model with integral rail) is for the user to add a detachable rail to the pistol. This is yet another item that must be maintained and regularly checked to insure that it does not come loose, which may result in loss of the light/rail, mechanical malfunction of the weapon, or the weapon being hopelessly "locked" inside of the user's holster. This is another argument for handgun replacement with an integral rail, and to not revisit the idea of a more user-friendly design would just be foolish. M9 weight: 33 oz. Glock 19 weight: 23 oz., S&W M&P 9 full size- 24 oz (about 1/3 weight reduction). To address some of your other questions: use of the M1911 (and variants)- this pistol is only utilized as a standard issue item by 1 command in the DOD. It was identified by that specific command as a suitable item for their unique mission, and obtained through their own unique acquisition process. This is an all-male Special Operations unit, thus their requirements and processes of selecting and obtaining equipment are totally separate from those of the service branches, along with their specialized missions. Comparing the costs (initial costs, maintenance costs, training costs, etc.) of military aircraft with items like small arms isn't even a viable comparison, except in that it shows what "small potatoes" small arms really are. But since you mentioned aircraft, it is interesting to me that the crews that fly and maintain them are often issued the M11 (Sig 228) pistol. To protect themselves when their gazillion dollar airplane doesn't make the trip home. And speaking of the M11, do you find it odd that when the need for a more compact 9mm handgun was identified by the mil, the Sig 228 was chosen over a smaller M9 variant, such as the already extant "compact" or "centurion" models? No, a variant of the Sig 226 (which beat the 92 in all performace portions of the trial, and was subsequently adopted by NAVSPECWAR and the Coast Guard in a mid-sized 40 caliber version) was the tool that effectively performs that task. 9mm ammo has the same effects on a target at impact, regardless of how it got there. But it still requires the gun to function and the shooter to have the ability to make it all come together, which explains some of reasons High Point probably won't be considered in any future pistol trial(s). The Army used to like big rifles to, but missions and capabilities change, along with the composition of the force. Glock didn't even submit a pistol to the M9 trials in the 1980's. They probably couldn't have delivered the product on time if they had entered, and had subsequently won the bid. And at the time, no one in the mil wanted anything to do with a plastic gun. We all believed they would blow up, and that the whole thing was a joke. Just like those who resisted things like self-loading rifles in the 30's. The MAG 58 MG was developed in Belgium in 1958. It started replacing the M60MG in the early 90's. Now we call it the M240MG (Oops). The generational models of Glocks mostly reflect the evolution that follow the process of operational requirements, along with technological advancements in other areas- like weapon lights. The generational changes in the Glock pistols had little bearing on the original mechanism and system of operation. The changes to the M9 pistol (even though MOST of them did not result in a change of model or nomenclature) were largely the results of FAILURES in the original system. Some of which have yet to be definitively cured, multiple attempts notwithstanding.
