US Army handgun

[FL-NC]

OD- 3 iterations of locking blocks to date. I've witnessed improvement in performance, but still an alarming rate of failure. After 3 attempts by Beretta's engineers using their considerable abilities to correct this, it is my opinion that this is a design flaw. This system of locking is present in all 92 based pistols. Were this a component of an aircraft or parachute, I believe it would have been forsaken long ago. Most users familiar with this chronic problem have no confidence in the reliability of the weapon, or of the problem to be permanently resolved. I haven't used a M9A3 to failure. In my former unit this took about 2 years with a M9. Someone once said that insanity it repeating the same process continuously while getting the same unfavorable result. The ammo can in the weapons repair shop with broken locking blocks of all types shows this.

Yes, I have used the A3 model, along with many other Beretta products. Mechanically identical to previous models, retaining the same design flaws and issues. The issue with the safety/decock isn't how it is "normally" used. In fact, local SOPs by commanders dictate how all weapons are carried, in my experience. If the SAFE feature is redundant (I believe it is) then why wasn't the G model adopted at some point? There's no manual safety on the M11, and it passed muster as a safe pistol for the inventory. The fact that I prefer the Glock as a service pistol is strictly that- a personal preference. I have clearly stated that other striker designs such as the M&P, FNS, or HK VP may be more suitable as a service pistol for Army service. Any would certainly be an improvement. The only ones I am familiar with are the Glock and M&P, so I have refrained from comments on the performance of the HK and FN products, as I'm not sufficiently informed/experienced to do so. Regarding mags, there are thousands of non Mec-Gar mags in service. Until and unless a reliable replacement (according to you, Mec-Gar) is provided on a 1-1 basis for them, this problem will continue. Service members shouldn't have to "procure" items like reliable mags for assigned weapons from anywhere besides unit supply.

As for the "dog in the fight". I have an interest in what my brothers and sisters, and our sons and daughters, are being provided with when they are sent in harm's way. I say this as a former Soldier as well as someone who works directly with and around our service members, both OCONUS and stateside. I don't engage in "crusades". If the conversation is irrelevant to you, why have you opted to participate? I've mostly enjoyed discussing this on an open forum. No one is "required" to weigh in.

 

[Barry the Bear]

Barry- too many logistical, safety, and legal reasons that personal firearms will never be authorized for duty use. Not only US laws, international laws and the laws of other countries.

Never said they were, they just should be.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

... with regard to personal firearms used in the military:

Never said they were, they just should be.

Can you imagine the problems that would be encountered with a bunch of DIFFERENT personal firearms in combat if a mag started to fail, a recoil spring went sour, a sight fell off from rough handling, etc, etc. I suspect the secondary market would make some guys rich!!

A unit's armorer or gunsmith would have to have a pretty big supply of parts to be ready for all of the different possibilities (or the individual would have to do his or her own gunsmithing and carry a good bit of spares him/herself, which could a problem, too). And that ignores ammo issues, unless only weapons that used NATO ammo was allowed.

In the best of all possible worlds, we usually get the best POSSIBLE world, not the BEST world.

 

[Barry the Bear]

Can you imagine the problems that would be encountered with a bunch of DIFFERENT personal firearms in combat if a mag started to fail, a recoil spring went sour, a sight fell off from rough handling, etc, etc. I suspect the secondary market would make some guys rich!!

A unit's armorer or gunsmith would have to have a pretty big supply of parts to be ready for all of the different possibilities (or the individual would have to do his or her own gunsmithing and carry a good bit of spares him/herself, which could a problem, too). And that ignores ammo issues, unless only weapons that used NATO ammo was allowed.

In the best of all possible worlds, we usually get the best POSSIBLE world, not the BEST world.

NATO is insane, prior to the first Gulf War it was not uncommon to hear of servicemen taking their own sidearm, a soldier or salor should be able to have the choice in a weapon that most of the people on this thread say doesn't matter much anyway.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Since you brought it up, would you be so kind as to provide some substantive documentation that this problem still exists, and specifically, again with the M9A3? And not just anecdotal snippets from some guy you know or used to work with ...

Is the M9A3 even out in large enough numbers and wide-enough use that such documentation has even been accumulated, yet?

Until you get a user that buys enough guns to matter and puts them in the field, as was the case when the US purchased the M9, it's going to be quite a while before the gun has had enough use to know to build a database of functionality and problems.

Suggesting that the M9A3 is better than the M9, the same, or worse would seem to be a SWAG, at best... Beretta did seem to address many of the things that people did NOT like about the M9, and there will probably be a lot of civilian buyers.

(I'm surprised nobody talks about the Beretta Kool-Aid! I've had a Vertec, a 92 and a 96. They were OK, and I didn't have any problems with them, I just didn't love them.)

 

[Walt Sherrill]

NATO is insane, prior to the first Gulf War it was not uncommon to hear of servicemen taking their own sidearm, a soldier or salor should be able to have the choice in a weapon that most of the people on this thread say doesn't matter much anyway.

Are you talking about Vietnam, perhaps? And are you talking about using personal weapons in combat? Except for the VN debacle, and some activity in Panama for a month or so, there wasn't THAT MUCH U.S. combat activity between VN and Desert Storm. So the likely problems of using a personal weapon on duty (in a combat situation) was a non-issue --there were few opportunities to do so!

I was in service [USAF] during the early VN era -- in Alaska and the States, so combat wasn't involved (except in Alaska at the Radar site, when folks had too much beer in their bellies); I had my own personal weapon, but I had to leave it locked up in the Orderly Room when I wasn't going to the range, etc.

One of my two closest friends (whom I met after i got out) were Army Special Forces. One worked as part of an A-Team (3.5 tours in VN) with the Montagnards, the other did dirty work in Africa about 10 years later. If they had personally owned weapons used on duty they never mentioned it -- and both were gun nuts. But, but they did use a variety of Army-issued long guns. (They were both Sniper and Ranger school trained.)

Another friend who was a Tunnel Rat crawled into those underground places in Vietnam, armed with an Army-issued 1911. He lost part of his weak hand to a booby trap, but is still a good shot. Still another friend (a West Point grad.) led a company of Army troops into Panama, and saw some action there, but not a lot. It was over pretty quickly, I think.

You may have heard right -- that soldiers and sailor took their own weapons -- but from what I know of the Navy, it doesn't seem likely for any of the folks on board boats or ships and, more to the point, there wasn't that much combat action between VN and Desert Storm.

The one exception I can think of is air crew members and pilots and weapons officers...

 

[FL-NC]

Walt, the M9A3 is definitely an improvement on the original design. But, most of the problems regarding reliability and service life are retained with the A3. "Third generation" locking blocks aren't new or exclusive to the A3. The mil has been using them (and breaking them) for some time now.

 

[Barry the Bear]

I'm talking about all wars prior to the Desert Storm.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I'm talking about all wars prior to the Desert Storm.

I was too!

Except for the Confederate troops in the Civil War, I've seen or read little to make me think that soldiers used personal weapons in combat, or carried them in the field as backup weapons. It was just extra stuff to carry!

I don't think the use of private (personally owned) weapons was all that common in WWII or the Korean War. Captured weapons were often barter fodder, and were exchanged quickly or sent home. And firing an enemy weapon could get you killed in combat -- as most of them had their own unque sound.

Stateside, nearly all of the folks who had personal weapons lived off base (with families) and kept them in their homes, just like civilians. You never saw them with the weapons on base, in the field, or in the WORK environment. They used their weapons for recreation: hunting deer, antelope, maybe a bear now and then, prairie dogs, or vicious paper targets.

I'd be interested is more details, if you've got them. Maybe there's a whole area of the military culture that has just remained invisible to me.

 

[FL-NC]

I didn't join the military until 1987, so I can't say what happened before then because I wasn't there. In the US, all firearms stored on base must be registered with the provost marshal, and either stored in the unit arms room or in family housing. To my knowledge, no base recognizes civilian carry permits. To the best of my knowledge, no personal firearms are AUTHORIZED to be taken on deployment by anyone. No firearms may be obtained on deployment and brought home. The only exception to this that I am aware of is "antique firearms" confirmed as made prior to 1898 may be brought back by US mil personnel from Afg., provided the unit allows it and they are documented by JAG. In most cases, firearms obtained "in theater" by confiscation, battlefield recovery, etc. may not be retained or utilized for any purpose by US personnel. In reality, people have brought personal sidearms, and in some cases complete AR upper receivers into theater and used them. In some cases, people have gotten in big trouble for this, in other cases, not so much. In some units, re-purposing enemy weapons and equipment is commonplace. These units have people who are trained in all aspects of these weapons, including safety considerations and how to properly employ them. these people know who they are. More than a few us service members have gotten in big trouble for bringing weapons back- whether they were obtained OCONUS or made a round trip back to the US. I've heard stories of US personnel leaving personal weapons in theater to prevent this, and trading them for whatever to incoming personnel. I've heard stories of people who brought nonstandard weapons in theater that they claimed they were obtained during a mission if they were questioned. The bottom line is, it is absolutely NOT authorized, and people shouldn't do it because it is wrong. But looking at people's holsters and asking questions really isn't a priority for me, now or when I was in the mil.

 

[PowerG]

Beretta says the average life of the locking block is 22,000 rounds, and the replacement kit (including recoil spring) is like $30, for a civilian, from the Beretta website. If you change the spring every few thousand rounds it will alleviate a lot of the block breakage. A new supplier was contracted for magazines, millions of newer ones duplicating the Mec-Gar design are in the system now. Slide breakage was addressed 30 years ago. There are better designs, but the M9A3 is a good design also; I like them but the frame size is simply too large for far too many people. If the Glock or M&P or similar is accepted, ND's will increase significantly unless a safety is added IMO.

 

[FL-NC]

Power- Beretta, along with many other companies trying to get contracts, has said a lot of things over the years that weren't accurate. Other issues surfaced only after the weapons were already in service- in some cases, for not that long. After 3 attempts (including the latest attempt) with locking blocks have failed, I'm skeptical that the problem has a definitive "fix", and I know ours were failing well before 22,000 rounds (11 CASES of GI ammo). The fact that Beretta (and every other company I'm aware of) hasn't designed a single handgun with a dropping lock block since speaks volumes in itself. Most of the other design flaws still exist; some are just "dulled". Slides STILL break on M9 pistols. I've seen it happen- the "fix" was a modification that prevented it from separating and flying backwards into the shooter's face. So, addressed in the sense that it hopefully won't cause injury to the user. The fact that the hopefully uninjured user is now holding an inoperable pistol remains. I've also seen frames crack. I've seen some M9 pistols that had cracks starting in frames, where a very small hole was drilled into the frame to stop the crack. I never got a straight answer as to who authorized this drilling. They were all "schoolhouse" guns.

The "ND/AD specter" is a real concern of Army brass. The idea that a different design lacking an "off switch" will increase them in frequency is valid, at least to them. If it takes the adoption of a superior weapon with a manual safety to appease this demon, so be it. I have no idea why police, service members from other countries, competitors, and casual civilian users haven't committed some sort of Glock based genocide with the thousands of Glock pistols in circulation, but whatever. The short answer is TRAINING. Remember that for an accident of this nature to occur with any weapon, the individual must violate 1 or more rules of handgun safety. The trigger MUST be activated to fire. NDs/ADs have happened and will continue with every weapon in the military. Overwhelmingly, they are the result of the user not knowing the weapon is loaded. I've seen it happen- even with the M9- a weapon that is difficult to fire on purpose, if you consider the DA trigger and mechanical safety. The only gun that can't be fired by accident is a gun that has been rendered mechanically disabled. So, to re-cap, an untrained individual with access to a firearm and ammunition and a very short time unsupervised is a recipe for shenanigans.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

NATO is insane, prior to the first Gulf War it was not uncommon to hear of servicemen taking their own sidearm, a soldier or salor should be able to have the choice in a weapon that most of the people on this thread say doesn't matter much anyway.

Sorry, gotta disagree with you here.

It was the exception to the rule for Soldiers and Sailors to take their own (personal) firearms into combat with them very shortly after the Civil War era.

Citing individuals who did do so does not mean this was a prevailing practice, either.

And speaking as a retired Sailor, the LAST thing I'd want in terms of a firearm is one for which there is no logistics support available to me when I should need it. Life would really start to suck right about the time I realized that I needed more ammunition that only my gun used or if my weapon needed servicing and there was no support available for it in the arena.

Not to mention the fact that, even though many people MIGHT have a firearm which would hold up to the arduous conditions that MIL SPEC weapons are intentionally designed for, the fact remains that a whole bunch of people won't.

And then there's the liability issue, as well.


With exceedingly few exceptions, the choices for Servicemembers is limited to what the government provides through its various agencies. Certain agencies have more choices, based on their own needs, and they obtain the weapons and logistics support accordingly.

 

[Barry the Bear]

Sorry, gotta disagree with you here.

It was the exception to the rule for Soldiers and Sailors to take their own (personal) firearms into combat with them very shortly after the Civil War era.

Citing individuals who did do so does not mean this was a prevailing practice, either.

And speaking as a retired Sailor, the LAST thing I'd want in terms of a firearm is one for which there is no logistics support available to me when I should need it. Life would really start to suck right about the time I realized that I needed more ammunition that only my gun used or if my weapon needed servicing and there was no support available for it in the arena.

Not to mention the fact that, even though many people MIGHT have a firearm which would hold up to the arduous conditions that MIL SPEC weapons are intentionally designed for, the fact remains that a whole bunch of people won't.

And then there's the liability issue, as well.


With exceedingly few exceptions, the choices for Servicemembers is limited to what the government provides through its various agencies. Certain agencies have more choices, based on their own needs, and they obtain the weapons and logistics support accordingly.

I'm not advocating for the discontinue of issued handguns whatever platform the Army so chooses, I'm simply advocating that servicemen be given an option to what they can bring with them into combat. As a soldier who was issued an M9 I can tell you I would much rather have a different sidearm ( not because of any flaws in the M9, just my personal preferences) This would save much more time and money than spending millions when all they needed to do was put a hollow point in the 92 and call it a day but our so called "rules of war" are so stupid that we can't do that. Blow up a target with a drone and superior artillery but don't put a hollow point in the gun it's inhumane!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Actually...not putting hollowpoints in our weapons may actually work to our benefit in the battlefield overall.

Combat isn't just the straight forward killing of the enemy, though that's arguably a huge part. It's also bogging down their resources, clogging their activities, and decimating their moral. Having to deal with huge numbers of wounded, in both the short term and the long term, takes up a lot of manpower and resources, and has a debilitating effect on morale.

So it's somewhat ironic that ball ammo is thought to be more "humane".


As a side note, anybody here have any clue what the most humane weapon of war ever devised was? Take a guess.

 

[FL-NC]

Barry, let's try to keep this train on the track, please. The numerous regs and international laws will not be bypassed in any way such as to allow service members to use their own weapons in the combat or on any deployment. The issues, both real and perceived, regarding the use of hollow point and similar projectiles along with the conditions of their use is being sorted out, for better or worse, by attorneys.

The point of the thread is discussion about the program for the Army's (and probably the whole DOD at some point) program to replace the existing service handgun with a new model.

 

[FL-NC]

Chief- the thought process you are referring to regarding the wounding of combatants and the effects thereof is no longer valid, at least not at present. It was and is a cold war era theory based on the logistics of a legitimate uniformed force in opposition to US and allied forces. Our enemy of today has no significant infrastructure to speak of regarding CASEVAC, hospitalization, etc. The fact is, many if not most of them want to die in the field. I have seen little if any effort on the part of these savages to give any aid or attempt to recover and evac their casualties. WIA or KIA. They are much more interested in retaining possession of that fighter's weapons, equipment, and so forth for future use. In my experience, an enemy casualty incapable of moving on his own is left to die in the desert or be recovered/treated by coalition personnel. The survivors are usually running for their lives- if the ground troops don't get them, they assume the USAF isn't far out. This is a long way from the US ethos of "leave no man behind". If anything, wounding them has an opposite effect- the integrity of US personnel and our allies compels us to give aid to these enemy combatants, thereby expending OUR resources. Arguments and hypotheticals aside, that is what often happens. Various terrorist groups in Latin America are known for "mercy killing" their wounded who can't move on their own, or otherwise keep up with the main force. The general belief is that they do this to prevent their wounded comrades from giving up information if captured alive.

 

[Old Dog]

Lost in all this is how often resorting to the pistol has occured in actual combat over the past few conflicts. I've personally spoken to a only a few who've pulled their sidearms during encounters with enemy combatants, and haven't yet heard from anyone whose issued pistol has failed in any regard. For the record, the servicemembers I've known have carried only M-9s, SIG P-226s or SIG P-228s.

At this point, I'm asking if anyone out there has any sort of documentation of any incidents where a U.S. servicemember had to resort to his/her issue M-9 and the pistol failed in any respect, with resultant loss of life or serious bodily injury to any U.S. or coalition force member. Again, the "I know a guy whose brother said ..." is just not gonna fly.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Lost in all this is how often resorting to the pistol has occured in actual combat over the past few conflicts. I've personally spoken to a only a few who've pulled their sidearms during encounters with enemy combatants, and haven't yet heard from anyone whose issued pistol has failed in any regard. For the record, the servicemembers I've known have carried only M-9s, SIG P-226s or SIG P-228s.

For many troops in combat, handguns are typically a last-resort weapon. The exceptions might be found among personnel in armored units, folks in transport roles, crew members working in fixed-wing aircraft, or those wearing civilian garb while performing their duties (needing to carry concealed!) Troops involved in intense urban warfare, where longer barreled weapons can sometimes get in the way will often have a handgun close to hand, as will Special Ops personnel who may rely on silencers/suppressor for up close and personal work. But, you can bet all of those folks will also have a longer-barreled weapon handy.

One SEAL (a "content expert" on the AR15.com site) talked about how a handgun is handier when scaling a ladder or rope up the side of a ship, as it lets you hold the ladder or rope with one one hand while firing with the other. It's harder to do that well with a bigger weapon. Once on deck, they switch back to something more potent.

All that said, I would suspect that unless you're actively involved with combat troops AND TRUSTED, you're NOT going to hear too many horror stories. That has nothing to do with how many such horror stories occured, but with the fact that combat troops typically don't share work details with folks they don't think will understand. Cops are the same way.

The lack of data is not data.

.

 

[BSA1]

Walt, the M9A3 is definitely an improvement on the original design. But, most of the problems regarding reliability and service life are retained with the A3. "Third generation" locking blocks aren't new or exclusive to the A3. The mil has been using them (and breaking them) for some time now.

You have been harping on this claim for 6 pages now but you have yet to produce any documentation to support your claims. The only source of information you have provided is your own self-reported extensive military service with the M-9 series including the new M9A3.

You have been asked several times for documentation of your claims. However you reply by bragging on your military career and personal observations. You keep presenting your opinions as fact about what you think are the design weaknesses in the Beretta which frankly many of us don't believe.

A career military man which your claimed length of service and vast experience with the M-9 and other handguns should be the first one to acknowledge that the average soldier has little serious interest in the maintenance of their firearms regardless of whether it is the M-9 or the M-4 carbine.

Battles are not fought in pristine conditions such as fought in the homes and streets of America. They are fought in a wide range of conditions ranging from dry, dusty deserts to muddy, wet jungles that quickly rust unprotected steel to cqb in house to house clearing.

The M-9 has not met but excelled in all of this conditions.

Slides STILL break on M9 pistols. I've seen it happen- the "fix" was a modification that prevented it from separating and flying backwards into the shooter's face.

Interesting that you are claiming that the slide capture feature on the FS/M9 does not work.

I've seen it happen- the "fix" was a modification that prevented it from separating and flying backwards into the shooter's face

WAIT A MINUTE! Are you or are you not claiming the slide capture feature of the FS/M9 works as intended?

I've also seen frames crack. I've seen some M9 pistols that had cracks starting in frames, where a very small hole was drilled into the frame to stop the crack.

So what? The 1911 with it's steel frame has a well documented history of the frame cracking. Glocks and other plastic frame guns have had problems with frame failures.

The drilling of a small hole is stop a crack from spreading in a non-critical area is a common gunsmith procedure.


You stated way back in Post #11 that

BSA- I didn't intend for this to be a M9 vs anything thread. I just tried to start a discussion on the M9 replacement project conceived within the DOD.

Yet you have exactly made this into a Glock vs. Beretta using old outdated locking block failure claim and other claims unsupported by any documentation and data.

 

[FL-NC]

BSA- to what address shall I send the following: A certified copy of my DD214, de-classified AAR's from deployments, weapons repair shop maintenance records, power point slides from Force Modernization section, sworn statements from anyone you deem significant to the matter, and lots of photographs, to include those of a whole pile of broken locking blocks in a unit weapons repair facility? (counselor- I assume you or your staff will be filling out the required FOIA paperwork, right)? Because it seems like an absence of the described material MUST be proof positive of me posting outright false information for the sole purpose of skewing the opinion of forum members for the purpose of preventing Beretta from being selected as the winner of the Modular Handgun System winner, and subsequently getting Glock this contract.

 

[FL-NC]

OD- The overwhelming majority of US service members never see the enemy, let alone engage the enemy with small arms of any type. Of the small arms used, the handgun is the least likely one to be used. This is due to several factors, but the most significant are the lack of handguns issued to those who engage the enemy, the distances of engagements, and the fact that the handgun is usually called into play following a malfunction of some type with the primary weapon, and utilizing the handgun is more efficient than correcting the malfunction. Our Soldiers and Marines fire thousands of rounds of ammunition while participating in realistic training. Comparatively speaking, the amount of ammunition expended in actual combat is very low. I would love to get accurate ratios on this. Besides making us the deadliest and best train force(s) on the globe, this training serves to highlight deficiencies at all levels- tactics, techniques, procedures, and- yes- equipment. As such, most equipment failures occur in training.

 

[amd6547]

Over at berettaforum, it's been a long time since I've read of any lock block failures, and some of those guys are high volume competition shooters.
I've also heard that the military still has bunches of the old blocks and use whatever comes to hand.

 

[FL-NC]

amd- I can't comment on what performance levels civilians are getting from their Beretta products. If they are as hard on their 92 series pistols as we are on our service pistols, yet they aren't experiencing the issues we were, that is definitely something worth investigating. As far as older locking blocks being used as repair parts in the mil, I can't say that I'm surprised. I never heard of any safety message coming out stating not to use them. So typically, through necessity due to lack of replacement parts or lack of a directive, I would expect existing stocks to be used until they are depleted or exchanged.

 

[BSA1]

FL-NC,

Links to independent verifiable sources that document the current problems the Army is experiencing with Beretta M-9 and the cause of the problems will be enough of a start. No discussion forums, facebook or blogs.

Rather than worrying about posting your no doubt impressive military history and combat awards how about answering my question I asked in Post #143;

Slides STILL break on M9 pistols.

and

I've seen it happen- the "fix" was a modification that prevented it from separating and flying backwards into the shooter's face

and

So, addressed in the sense that it hopefully won't cause injury to the user. The fact that the hopefully uninjured user is now holding an inoperable pistol remains

Does the slide capture design on the FS and M-9 work as intended?

As a soldier with your experience you know that the average soldier has little interest in their small arms. They are neglected and abused. There is no reason to believe that plastic frame striker fired handguns will withstand neglect and abuse better than the Beretta. There is a definite advantage to the double strike feature of the M-9 with ammunition with hard primers vs. a striker handgun that must have the hammer reset by racking the slide again requiring use of both hands.

Anyway enough of my drivel.