US Military and the Beretta M9

[Avenger29]

The major, popular handgun calibers (.45, .40, 9mm in terms of autoloading pistols) have, in the end, about the same performance.

I'm perfectly cool with 9mm, and very pleased with a quality, premium JHP load.

Not to mention is that I get more practice with my 9mm than I would if I had a .45 (due to ammo costs), so that helps in practicality.

I am certainly not going to dis .40 or .45. But 9mm (and .223/5.56, the "other" round that people love to dump on) do not get enough respect.

 

[mljdeckard]

However, from one end of the chart to the other, say, 9mm FMJ compared to .45 230 gr HST, the difference will become more obvious. I don't know anyone who carries 9mm FMJ for their carry gun. I am not at all uncomfortable carrying .45 FMJ. This is a game where you are using an inferior emergency tool to save your life. You need all the advantages you can get.

 

[Philo_Beddoe]

Not that "scientifically" it will ever matter to the BG but for me if I cannot hit him with 8 what good is 13 gunna do me

In war their is only one bad guy at a time? Quite frankly it seems to me that alot of shooting in war is just to keep the other guys head down.

All the major nations did studies after WW 2 concluded that volume of fire was just as important as aimed fire was in producing casualties, which is why they all adopted fully automatic low recoil assault rifles.

Just staying

 

[smoketheresfire]

I've also talked to a lot of soldiers and Marines about why exactly the military switched to a 9mm Beretta, of all things. I've heard a few different answers -- capacity, politics, money, weight, etc. But one thing I keep hearing is that in the 1980s, a lot of women were getting into the military and couldn't handle the recoil of the .45 ACP. Can anyone substantiate that?

Sounds unlikely. Plus I've never thought the .45ACP recoiled THAT much more than a 9mm.

I will say this, coincidentally, I shot a 92fs (M9) for the first time today and was thoroughly impressed. One of the best pistols I've shot. Big, heavy, and accurate. Loved it. All that weight and those big grips (got big hands) go a long way toward keeping it on target too. MY GOD, the double taps. I was ripping through those mags with a quickness. Your mileage will assuredly vary, however.

 

[sb350hp]

In war their is only one bad guy at a time? Quite frankly it seems to me that alot of shooting in war is just to keep the other guys head down.

All the major nations did studies after WW 2 concluded that volume of fire was just as important as aimed fire was in producing casualties, which is why they all adopted fully automatic low recoil assault rifles.

You only shoot one bad guy at a time, and as for cover fire you mentioned automatic assualt rifles. I agree but we are talking M9's not MP5s

 

[psyopspec]

No, I don't prefer it, but when I am issued one, I go to the range and make sure it works. I check it frequently to make sure it KEEPS working. I would do this no matter what the issue sidearm is.

Agreed. The pistol isn't my preference personally, or for what I'd issue if I were King of the Army. However, it'll do the job. Also, testing, cleaning, and maintaining are something I do for all my arms, regardless of platform or caliber.

 

[Lincoln7]

There is more to bullets besides the actual diameter of it. Alot has to do with the amount of powder used to move it/how much powder you can fit in the casing and the mass of the bullet. 230gr, .45 versus 115gr, 9mm.

 

[CooperThunder]

My son came home yesterday from military school -- just for 4 days actually. I was talking to him about taking his NRA Basic Pistol and CCW as a Christmas gift. I actually mentioned about him using my Glock when he takes his classes. It was only then that he mentioned that they are going to be issued an M9 and that I am wasting my money because he is sure the military will pay for his CCW lessons. I said I know...but I want him to be ahead -- he knows how I am. I always advise all my kids to be ahead, to think ahead, etc.

 

[Philo_Beddoe]

There is more to bullets besides the actual diameter of it. Alot has to do with the amount of powder used to move it/how much powder you can fit in the casing and the mass of the bullet. 230gr, .45 versus 115gr, 9mm

You can get 147 gr 9mm bullets.

This was posted on guntest in reguards to the 9mm berreta 92

I read your recent review of the Beretta 90-Two 9mm with interest. As always, I find your reviews wonderfully thorough, incisive and thoughtful.

That being said, there were a few editorial comments that I do think merit response, beginning with "...for others who realize the limitations of the caliber, a 9mm.…" The actual scientific database, which I have spent many years reviewing in terminal ballistic studies, actually does not define a dramatic distinction in the terminal ballistics capability of other handgun calibers in comparison to current 9mm bullet design. While there is not question, based on the laws of physics as well as my experience of over 20 years as a neurosurgeon at a University Academic Medical Center, that other calibers do, indeed, have more capability, the actual scientific database to support a substantial distinction is meager. In fact, after several decades of terminal ballistics literature reviews, the actual factual database to support that, for example, a 45-caliber handgun round is dramatically more capable than current 9mm rounds is, at best, wanting and probably absolutely not available in the scientific literature. Anecdotal stories aside, which will always abound, the concept that one handgun round vastly outperforms another when similar bullet design (for example one gold dot caliber versus another gold dot caliber) generally offers very little in the way of dramatic distinction in terminal ballistic capability.

Additionally, it is, in my opinion, almost essential when commenting on caliber effectiveness with regards to terminal ballistics, to emphasize that all things in life are a "trade off." While 45 and 40 or other options may provide some marginal increase in terminal ballistic performance based on momentum, permanent wound track size, etc., the weapon dimension increases, capacity decreases and all these other variables as well as shot-to-shot follow-through capability will all be effected to differing extents in differing individuals’ skill envelope. To disparage the 9mm round without emphasizing its other potential assets is, in my opinion, probably something less than scientific.

While I do not own a Beretta 90-Two and I am not suggesting that the large size is necessarily an attribute, the feeling that "if one plans to miss a lot and make a lot of noise" probably would also be found wanting by some, particularly those who have served in the Middle East. During the course of my discussions about terminal ballistics with a number of people in very substantial combat positions who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, the capacity, in their opinion, often was a very nice attribute and, several of them thought that the high capacity of the 9mm was a much greater asset than they might have imagined.

As to the utilization of the word "archaic" when reviewing the double-action/single-action design, while there is no question many individuals have moved away from such a system, as the years go by, both in surgical technology and instrumentation, as well as firearms technology, I come more and more each year to recognizing that each person finds something that works very well for them. While no one will probably dispute that double-action/single-action has lost favor in some large subgroups of individuals, the same could be said of a 1911 single-action style for most of law enforcement (whether that’s legitimate or not is immaterial to the discussion) and, probably the phrase "archaic" would be better to have been substituted with a phrase such as "less popular."

I always find your articles beautifully done and I always look forward to the reviews each month. Again, thanks so much very much for your attention and consideration. —Paul K. Maurer, M.D.

Professor of Neurosurgery

University of Rochester Medical Center

Rochester, New York

 

[GRIZ22]

But one thing I keep hearing is that in the 1980s, a lot of women were getting into the military and couldn't handle the recoil of the .45 ACP. Can anyone substantiate that?


Women in the military had nothing to do with adopting the M9. There are plenty of big he men who can't shoot a pistol worth a _____. The 9mm FMJ is not a rhino roller but you have to realize that pistol training in most of the military is just enough to get soldiers qualified on a pretty easy course. Switching to a round that made it easier for soldiers to hit what they were aiming at kind of makes sense. The military was dedicated to converting to the 9mm for compatibility with the rest of NATO. One prospect proposed converting the 1911s to 9mm (at a cost of about $125 a pistol). This was not considered as the newest 1911s in the inventory were over 35 years old at the time. Army pilots were armed with 38s using the way underpowered military load until the adoption of the M9.

 

[K9american]

"Knowledge is power"

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

http://louisianacarry.org/articles/quantico.htm

 

[Avenger29]

My son came home yesterday from military school -- just for 4 days actually. I was talking to him about taking his NRA Basic Pistol and CCW as a Christmas gift. I actually mentioned about him using my Glock when he takes his classes. It was only then that he mentioned that they are going to be issued an M9 and that I am wasting my money because he is sure the military will pay for his CCW lessons. I said I know...but I want him to be ahead -- he knows how I am. I always advise all my kids to be ahead, to think ahead, etc.

The military won't be paying for his CCW class. The military can be rather antigun, for an organization that is supposed to kill people and break stuff.

If he's going to be in combat, or the possibility of combat, then he'd best seek out his own rifle and pistol training at one of the many fine schools/instructors scattered around the country. Military firearms training can be woefully inadequate, and more training can never hurt.

Women in the military had nothing to do with adopting the M9. There are plenty of big he men who can't shoot a pistol worth a _____. The 9mm FMJ is not a rhino roller but you have to realize that pistol training in most of the military is just enough to get soldiers qualified on a pretty easy course. Switching to a round that made it easier for soldiers to hit what they were aiming at kind of makes sense. The military was dedicated to converting to the 9mm for compatibility with the rest of NATO. One prospect proposed converting the 1911s to 9mm (at a cost of about $125 a pistol). This was not considered as the newest 1911s in the inventory were over 35 years old at the time. Army pilots were armed with 38s using the way underpowered military load until the adoption of the M9.

I know a lot of people don't like the idea of 9mm, 9mm FMJ, or the M9, but it was actually a smart move. The M9 is a good pistol, and easier for an armorer to maintain than a 1911. The 1911 is a beautiful piece, but it has to be specially taken care of by somebody who really knows what they are doing.

 

[mljdeckard]

Yeah, tell your CO you carry off-duty, he will get the willies. What I am trying to do, is get my unit to pony up the funds to send a few of us to Thunder Ranch for the pistol basic course, with the idea of returning to the unit as designated pistol instructors. There is precedent in my unit for going outside the military for mission-critical skills training, and I know that Thunder Ranch does train military personnel, it's just a question of who pays for it. (I mostly just want them to pay for it, and the ammo.) One problem I see, is that if THEY pay for the course, they will want me to use my issue sidearm. They won't want anything other than .gov ammo in their .gov weapon. But Thunder Ranch required lead-free frangible ammo now.

Bottom line, I'll probably wind up out-of-pocketing to go by myself.

 

[psyopspec]

Yeah, tell your CO you carry off-duty, he will get the willies.

Not if I'm your CO. I can't quote an exact percentage, but a significant number of NCOs in my unit have gotten CCWs after coming home from deployment. Out of curiosity one day, I asked a group of about 15 who had a permit and a pistol, and about half the hands went up. The other half probably has a long gun stashed in the truck when legal.

Types of guns vary about as much as the general populace. Glocks are popular, but a lot of folks preferred revolvers. No one that I know of in my unit chooses to CCW a 92FS, though I have in the past. The combination of competing with my personal one and practicing just to be proficient with it made it a natural choice for carry.

 

[SIGLBER]

Short story about "ineffective 9mm". One of the guys at my range was an M1 tank crewman. The tanks commander got out of the M1 (he never really said why). Three Iraqi's with AK's appear out of nowhere. They are as surprised as he was. He drew his M9 and killed all three. Tell him or anyone else that the Beretta 9mm sucks. Lots of the guys at the range after being in the service buy Berettas after they get home. Says alot about them.
All pistol calibers are poor stoppers. All have made great stops. All have failed at one time or another. Get away from all the hype about this caliber or that. Try to read reports from medics or Doctors who treat gunshot wounds. Or those that have actually used the 9mm in combat. According to the medical people I've read they only can tell rather an individual is shot by a 9mm or .45
(hell even a .32 according to Jim Cirillo's book)after they remove the bullet. Look a pistol bullet makes a hole. That's it. The body tries to close up the wound after the bullet has passed through it. It's trying to stem the bleeding and save itself. Pretty much every other armed forces around the world carries 9mm. The Russians even went over to it when they were looking for a replacement for the Makarov.
If you start off with a realistic idea of what a handgun can and cannot do then you can make an educated choice. The best definition I've heard of stopping power if to "hit them in the vitals and repeat as necessary". Any of the major service handgun calibers is suffcient to protect your life if you shoot it well. So since one shot stops even with a rifle can be iffy what should you expect from any handgun? Pretty much hit the bad guy in the vitals while moving to cover and continue until the threat ceases. That's the only thing any handgun round will do. And since so little time is spent with pistol training (except by certain SF types) one with low recoil and muzzle blast. With lots of rounds makes alot of sense. Besides being able to find ammo for it anywhere in the world.

 

[Averageman]

Well

They made this choice and I think it was about resupply and NATO having common ammo. It was also about replacing the 35 year old 1911's.
We were carrying the same 1911 our Grandfathers did and even if we didn't want the M9 we were gonna get it.
I never found the .45 harder to maintain as an Armor crewman or an Armorer. Actually when I was the Armorer I could repair and tighten up performance on my 1911's pretty easy. There were footlockers (literally) full of parts to work with, so you had lots of raw material to work with.
When the M9's came in pistols score went up, but I thought it was a great degree because an M9 is just easier to shoot. I often thought there was just a slightly different skill set need to be accurate with the .45 and many times the same people who couldn't shoot a 1911 in the Military made little effort to maintain it.
It was pretty disheartening to read an FBI report on 9mm performance during a shootout/bank robbery, where several agents were killed execution style by a fellow with body armor and a mini 14. That took all of my confidence in the 9mm away, cooincedently this report came out right about the time we got our 9's.
One thing I learned during my time on active duty ('81 to '01) was that there were very few people very enthusastic about shooting. Needless to say that was disappointing to me as a young trooper.
Now with nearly 30 years service, active duty and now working for the Army as a civilian. I've decided lots of people are making decisons about weapons are compromising rather than making smart decisions.
Technology doesn't always surpass a skill set earned through training.
I don't want to rehash a 9mm vs.45 debate, but I personally felt much more confident with my .45.

 

[NCPatrolAR]

Yeah, tell your CO you carry off-duty, he will get the willies. What I am trying to do, is get my unit to pony up the funds to send a few of us to Thunder Ranch for the pistol basic course, with the idea of returning to the unit as designated pistol instructors. There is precedent in my unit for going outside the military for mission-critical skills training, and I know that Thunder Ranch does train military personnel, it's just a question of who pays for it. (I mostly just want them to pay for it, and the ammo.) One problem I see, is that if THEY pay for the course, they will want me to use my issue sidearm. They won't want anything other than .gov ammo in their .gov weapon. But Thunder Ranch required lead-free frangible ammo now.

Bottom line, I'll probably wind up out-of-pocketing to go by myself.

Why dont you bring someone like Larry Vickers, Paul Howe, or Brian Sercey to your unit and do some training? You'd probably get more out of it than going to Thunder Ranch

 

[mljdeckard]

Because I want a week-long paid TDY vacation, of course.

 

[Avenger29]

It was pretty disheartening to read an FBI report on 9mm performance during a shootout/bank robbery, where several agents were killed execution style by a fellow with body armor and a mini 14. That took all of my confidence in the 9mm away, cooincedently this report came out right about the time we got our 9's.

The .45 would have sucked just as bad when it comes to body armor in that case.

When you're going up against body armor, you need a RIFLE. Hence, nowadays, a lot of cops now are either getting issued an AR-15 or authorized to purchase one of their own.

 

[CooperThunder]

Short story about "ineffective 9mm". One of the guys at my range was an M1 tank crewman. The tanks commander got out of the M1 (he never really said why). Three Iraqi's with AK's appear out of nowhere. They are as surprised as he was. He drew his M9 and killed all three. Tell him or anyone else that the Beretta 9mm sucks. Lots of the guys at the range after being in the service buy Berettas after they get home. Says alot about them.
All pistol calibers are poor stoppers. All have made great stops. All have failed at one time or another. Get away from all the hype about this caliber or that. Try to read reports from medics or Doctors who treat gunshot wounds. Or those that have actually used the 9mm in combat. According to the medical people I've read they only can tell rather an individual is shot by a 9mm or .45
(hell even a .32 according to Jim Cirillo's book)after they remove the bullet. Look a pistol bullet makes a hole. That's it. The body tries to close up the wound after the bullet has passed through it. It's trying to stem the bleeding and save itself. Pretty much every other armed forces around the world carries 9mm. The Russians even went over to it when they were looking for a replacement for the Makarov.
If you start off with a realistic idea of what a handgun can and cannot do then you can make an educated choice. The best definition I've heard of stopping power if to "hit them in the vitals and repeat as necessary". Any of the major service handgun calibers is suffcient to protect your life if you shoot it well. So since one shot stops even with a rifle can be iffy what should you expect from any handgun? Pretty much hit the bad guy in the vitals while moving to cover and continue until the threat ceases. That's the only thing any handgun round will do. And since so little time is spent with pistol training (except by certain SF types) one with low recoil and muzzle blast. With lots of rounds makes alot of sense. Besides being able to find ammo for it anywhere in the world.

I went out yesterday to buy sonny boy a brand-new Beretta M9, made in Italy, the works. Then I enrolled him in an NRABasicPistol/CCW class for when he comes back home for Christmas. After I've done all these, I told my husband. His face fell and was about to say something, I was quicker than him -- I turned my back and said I don't want my cooking to burn. He caught up with me in bed and was asked to explain why I did what I did. I mentioned about your response here and told him that I will feel better if my son can be ahead in training to shoot his own gun even before the military issues him an M9.

 

[JustinL]

I have no problem with the M9 as a handgun. I had never even held one before I qualified on one and was really impressed with it. This coming from a SIG guy who was disappointed he did not get an M11. I think I might just buy one for myself.

 

[kingmt]

I love 9mm's. I also love my 45ACP. They both shoot great & I am shore of there ability.

I seen something on deer hunting with a .22 & wanted to say that most people that chose a weapon don't know why it is better they just use it because other people do. While it is quitter it has other benefits. It is normally more accurate & when shooting in the head it will drop in its tracks & no blood left behind. It is small, light (which helps in well placed shoots), & cheep. I have seen what a 17HMR can do to a deer & think it would make a excellent deer rifle. I seen a guy shoot one in the head that laid down where shoot without a twitch & another one shoot in the side that only went a few yards. It's downfalls are it leaves no blood trail & if the wrong kind of ammo(FMJ) was used I don't think it would do the job. Another plus is there is much less meat wasted from it.

I spoke of wrong ammo used in the .17 & this is the problem with self defense rounds also. I hear one guy tell me that he prefers a full metal jacket because it will kill someone quicker & another will complain that he bought the best ammo he could find (Remington hallow points) & they don't group together at 25 yards. You need to know what ammo is for what. I carry a hallow point in my 9mm because I want it to hit the BG & stop not go through a wall & get someone else. I carry a clip of FMJ's just in case I need to shoot through the door. I prefer this as my carry gun because I can carry more rounds in a smaller gun. I know it was only one guy I had to shoot & it was point blank range or I had another weapon for it to get me to then 8 or less rounds would be fine. I actually carry a .38 with 5 shoots most of the time because it is small & functions without falt but isn't my preference.

As the world changes & I see what is happening (like Marshall Law during hurricane Katrina) I have decided that more rounds is better then bigger rounds.

I also seen where it was sad that 1 big hit was better then 13 little misses & I say that 1 little hit is better then 8 big misses.

I remember someones signature says something like if you need more then 4 mags your not short of round but people on your side of the fight.

Sorry OP that this has nothing to do with your question but I can only guess why the military went to a 9mm & I would say it is because they can move more rounds around at a cheaper price. I surprised they don't use .22LR for both rifle & sidearm. I tried to argue that for my MOS it made more since to issue sidearms then rifles because if they got to where we was then they had already proven they out gunned use & my rifle was twisted in the rifle sling that belong to someone else looking pretty while I was under a truck or had my head in the doghouse changing a clutch. No one ever cared what I thought though.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

i don't really like the feel of the M92FS in my hands. i prefer a Sig, the beretta seems to bulky for me.

 

[Average Joe]

I would think with the broad range of people in the military, the M9 would be more user friendly to all. More or less an all purpose, all people firearm.

 

[Coltman 77]

I bought my first Beretta 92 in 1989 -- an Italian 92F. Since then I've added a few more to my collection.

They have been very impressive. Accurate and reliable.

I've put all kinds of jhp and fmj ammo thru them and never had a failure. Not one.

The 92's balance well and point naturally for me and I like the slide mounted safety/decocker.

They are very easy to break down and clean.

I have quite a few handguns to choose from but my bedside piece is a Beretta 92FS loaded with 15+1 rds. of 124 gr +P HST.

ETA

The Beretta 92 is my wife's favorite pistol too. She's 5'4" tall, 102 lbs. and as you would imagine has rather small hands.
She prefers it over all our pistols except her 9mm PPS which is her carry gun.