Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

whats wrong with the M9?


Trigger Mike

Recommended Posts

Don't know, but my two friends who served in Iraq back in 2004 hated theirs.....but being Marines they probably wanted the big ole .45 :D

 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/110/102286.pdf

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M-9 was the solution to a non-existing problem. The US wanted to base missiles in Italy, Italy needed some encouragement, Beretta gets a lucrative military contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The excuse is that the M96's are old and wearing out. The reality is that they are too big for manu female hands and they want a pistol with grip inserts. With women becoming a larger part of the military and now allowed into combat they need a pistol more adaptable to more people. I'm sure there are other reasons but I think that is the basic problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Army has just now rediscovered that there is no such thing as a one size fits all. Below is a very interesting read.

 

When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages

 

 

In the early 1950s, the U.S. air force measured more than 4,000 pilots on 140 dimensions of size, in order to tailor cockpit design to the "average" pilot. But it turned out the average airman didn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coffinmaker is correct. The 9mm does not have enough stopping power for use in combat, especially against enemies in body armor. Military sidearms are mostly last resort weapons, but many special operations forces who actually use side arms in life or death situations have gone back to the 1911.

 

Remember, the 45 ACP was developed because the 38 special the Army was using at the time was inadequate to stop the Philippine Morro tribesmen. The Army even went back to the 45 Colt revolver for a time until the 45 ACP was ready. The new pistol selection could be anything, but I am guessing a 10mm or 40 S&W. Remember from a SASS view point, the 38-40 in BP is the same caliber and ballistically identical to the 10mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, the 45 ACP was developed because the 38 special the Army was using at the time was inadequate to stop the Philippine Morro tribesmen.

Nitpicking I know, but it was the .38 Long Colt cartridge, not the .38 Special that was a problem in the Phillipines. The .38 Special was developed as a response to the failure of the .38 Long Colt in the Philippine insurrection. The .45 acp was the round developed to solve the same problem and as we know, was adopted by the military.

 

The .38 Special went on to a long career in law enforcement and civilian market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a solution. Let them boys and girls buy their own that's to their liking, along with ammo and other amenities...and turn a receipt into Uncle Sam.

 

Or Uncle Sam just get it in their noogin to go back to the tried and proven......the 1911.

 

Uncle Sam is sure to save big money either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the scuttlebutt started about replacing the M9, about 2010, several makers came out with polymer frame, .45 ACP, manual thumb safety pistols. The S&W M&P, Ruger SR-45 and several from Herstal are all set up to meet likely requirements.

I do not see the military going back to a single-action 1911.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M-9 procurement specifications called for a "high capacity" magazine and a DA/SA firing system. That was negated by local command practices of requiring it to be carried with the chamber empty and safety on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will start by saying I am biased, because having carried the M9 for the vast majority of my time in, including a number of missions on deployment, I can only say I liked it enough so that my retirement gift to me was an M9. I always had confidence in it to do its job if I did mine. Granted, when given the option between the M9 and the M4 I chose the M4, but for me that was a no-brainer.

 

The reasons for the desired change are numerous. As was mentioned, there is a desire for a "modular" platform, so that a pistol can be adapted to different sized hands. Funny that my personal M9, with Hogue grips, is actually a bit thicker than the standard, yet Mrs. Doc, who has smaller hands, was putting rounds down range with it two days ago without problem. I've trained other females, and small statured males to shoot the M9 as well. There is also a desire to go toward a striker fire design, because that is the newest, hippest design. There are other things the Army wishes to change as well.

 

Beretta offered to finish out their current contract with M9A3s, which would have been compatible with existing M9s internally, not requiring any additional training for troops or armorers, but addressed many of the design desires of the Army, including a thinner grip. Yes, I am sure Beretta's idea was it would keep them with a lucrative contract, but it would have also given the Army a design improvement now, which has been done over time with other items in military inventory, without the need for further reviews. The Army refused.

 

As it is, you have a contingent pushing for Glocks, while other manufacturers are coming forth with their own designs including Ruger and Beretta. I'm not a fan, but I'm not a hater either. I will say if Glocks are adopted, it will practically guarantee that they are seldom carried with a round chambered, because of the lack of a manual safety. I would anticipate that the rate of negligent discharges among troops who do not carry nor utilize every day will increase. But that is just my opinion on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has happened to the .45 ACP pistol Colt's (I think) was designing for the Marine Raiders (designation recently given to Force Recon or SOG)? BTW, the .40 S&W, in its original loading, is ballistically identical to the .38-40 WCF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having fired both the 1911 and the M9 in the National Guard, I would have chosen the M9 which was accurate and reliable over the worn out 1911's we had in the armory which would not go a full magazine without jamming.

 

The military has to pick a handgun that comes closest to fitting ALL of the people in the service, so while many of us have strong preferences for what we would choose to carry, those choices aren't necessarily ideal for the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having fired both the 1911 and the M9 in the National Guard, I would have chosen the M9 which was accurate and reliable over the worn out 1911's we had in the armory which would not go a full magazine without jamming.

 

The military has to pick a handgun that comes closest to fitting ALL of the people in the service, so while many of us have strong preferences for what we would choose to carry, those choices aren't necessarily ideal for the military.

 

I had the same experience, and well stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.45ACP is a very good round,

 

Now you need to find a firearm to rap around the cartridge that the whole military personnel can reliably maintain, operate, and shoot the .45ACP through. Plus the gun has to pass all the field trials testing

+

you can afford to purchase 300,000+ units of.

 

It will not be the 1911 steel/alloy gun platform

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree the 1911 is better but i was in when the army was proud to switch to the M9 partially because NATO uses 9mm. logistics made it practical. just surprised they are changing again.

NATO standard was 7.62mm and we didn't hesitate to adopt the 5.56mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deleted

 

Having fired both the 1911 and the M9 in the National Guard, I would have chosen the M9 which was accurate and reliable over the worn out 1911's we had in the armory which would not go a full magazine without jamming.

 

The military has to pick a handgun that comes closest to fitting ALL of the people in the service, so while many of us have strong preferences for what we would choose to carry, those choices aren't necessarily ideal for the military.

Not really fair comparing a fairly new pistol against one that is worn out. I have three 45's and don't ever recall one of them jamming, and that's easily over 40,000 rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO standard was 7.62mm and we didn't hesitate to adopt the 5.56mm.

Didn't we force the 7.62 onto NATO in the first place (they wanted to go 6mm, but WE required 30 caliber) before switching to Mr. Stoner's plastic toy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gun in the military, an 8" howitzer was a one size fits all and very effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we force the 7.62 onto NATO in the first place (they wanted to go 6mm, but WE required 30 caliber) before switching to Mr. Stoner's plastic toy?

Yes we did, NATO wanted the FAL in 6mm we told them that if they went to 7.72mm we would adopt the FN/FAL, they redesigned it to 7.62mm and we adopted the M-14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trigger Mike,

 

The Beretta 92/M9 area excellent, reliable, combat proven design that has seen duty worldwide. For more informed discussion and useful information about it I suggest you visit Beretta Forum at:

 

http://berettaforum.net/vb/index.php?s=007c8be99becc15f8590d1ff788b5ce5

 

It is a friendly group that enjoy discussing all Beretta firearms, not just the 92/M9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not really fair comparing a fairly new pistol against one that is worn out. I have three 45's and don't ever recall one of them jamming, and that's easily over 40,000 rounds.

 

Bingo.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trigger Mike,

 

The Beretta 92/M9 area excellent, reliable, combat proven design that has seen duty worldwide. For more informed discussion and useful information about it I suggest you visit Beretta Forum at:

 

http://berettaforum.net/vb/index.php?s=007c8be99becc15f8590d1ff788b5ce5

 

It is a friendly group that enjoy discussing all Beretta firearms, not just the 92/M9.

 

Thanks, I may need to go there and sign up. It looks like some good information to be had.

 

Oh, and yes, I do realize that comparing the M9 to WWII vintage (literally) 1911s is apples and oranges. The fact is, the 1911s were worn out, and the military was going to need to renew the procurement process, and the new pistol was destined to be a 9x19 for a number of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not really fair comparing a fairly new pistol against one that is worn out. I have three 45's and don't ever recall one of them jamming, and that's easily over 40,000 rounds.

 

Shrug, that was what was issue in 1993 when I was in the National Guard, along with M-16A1's and M-60's from the Vietnam time frame. The 1911 needed to be replaced and the Beretta won the competition in 1985. Now the Beretta's are allegedly worn out and need to be replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Shrug, that was what was issue in 1993 when I was in the National Guard, along with M-16A1's and M-60's from the Vietnam time frame. The 1911 needed to be replaced and the Beretta won the competition in 1985. Now the Beretta's are allegedly worn out and need to be replaced.

 

I may be wrong on this, but Beretta is still contracted to deliver more M9s to the Army. I will need to find the article, but if that is the case, and the Army were to adopt a new sidearm, it could mean one of two things, the Army will need to pay Beretta for firearms not delivered to cancel the contract, or virtually new M9s will be turned around into the surplus market or elsewhere. I know Beretta has been continually delivering M9s under a new contract from 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.