Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calgunners in Service
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calgunners in Service This forum is a place for our active duty and deployed members to share, request and have a bit of home where ever they are.

View Poll Results: How do you feel about the M9
Love it 61 30.20%
It gets the job done 100 49.50%
Hate it 41 20.30%
Voters: 202. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-28-2012, 9:11 AM
laabstract's Avatar
laabstract laabstract is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 1,857
iTrader: 54 / 98%
Default M9 Love it? or Hate it?

Hey guys I just wanted to see the servicemen perspective on the M9.

Why do you love it?
Why do you hate it?
__________________
In memory of Ricky Lee Turner, January 16th 2009 Baghdad Iraq

In memory of Rogelio Antonio Ramirez, August 26th 2007
Saqlawiyah Iraq

"most people quick to go to war haven't seen it."-
unknown

Check out my YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/DJCBX/videos
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-28-2012, 9:16 AM
laabstract's Avatar
laabstract laabstract is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 1,857
iTrader: 54 / 98%
Default

The ones I were issues had issues with FTF and FTE I find that the platform is a bit heavy and bulky.
__________________
In memory of Ricky Lee Turner, January 16th 2009 Baghdad Iraq

In memory of Rogelio Antonio Ramirez, August 26th 2007
Saqlawiyah Iraq

"most people quick to go to war haven't seen it."-
unknown

Check out my YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/DJCBX/videos
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-28-2012, 9:27 AM
The Soup Nazi's Avatar
The Soup Nazi The Soup Nazi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose, California / Princeton, New Jersey
Posts: 2,434
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Too large of a form factor.
__________________

"There is an old song which asserts that "the best things in life are free". Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-28-2012, 9:39 AM
Trapper's Avatar
Trapper Trapper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 1,689
iTrader: 104 / 100%
Default

I was on active duty when we transitioned from 1911s to the Beretta. The M9 has better sights, less recoil and most shooters had higher scores when qualifying with the M9. I'm not anti 9mm but wouldn't have chosen the M9 as my top pick. The M9 is too bulky for a 15 shot 9mm and I've seen too many malfunctions to ever add one to my collection. I can forgive the FTF malfunctions caused by bad mags but we had cracked frames, cracked locking blocks, and lugs.
__________________
When the battle drum beats, it is too late to sharpen your sword."
Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by Trapper; 07-28-2012 at 9:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-28-2012, 9:41 AM
jmsenk's Avatar
jmsenk jmsenk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Laguna Niguel
Posts: 495
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Back when I was a baby private and got a chance to familiarize myself with it - and even qualify (strange for a 17yr old Infantryman) I thought it was great. I kept it clean, maintained it, and shot fine with it - always qualified expert (and by "Always" I mean like the 2 times I qualed with it) I didn't know what the old timers were talking about with it being a POS weapon.

Then, I turned 21, and I could start buying my own guns. And my friends bought guns. And I began hanging out at ranges, and talking to shooters who were more than "Standard issue" type guys. Thats when I realized just exactly how substandard the M-9 is. I don't hate it, and I know a few buddies who chose to buy one of their own. It gets the job done, and I wouldn't be opposed to carrying one... but I'd prefer a different system. Just about any other system that is decent (Sig Sauer, Colt 1911, FNP, Glock, H&K, etc.)

I won't ever knock it for being a bad gun... I just think there are some superior ones out there for the same price point, or lower.
__________________
My Blog: Here I Stand
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-28-2012, 9:49 AM
IrishPirate's Avatar
IrishPirate IrishPirate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Roseville, PRK
Posts: 6,401
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Sorry to interrupt (Thank you all for your service BTW!!!) but is it true that the M9 had issues with the slide blowing completely off during recoil? I was maybe in junior high when I heard that but I've never gotten it confirmed. I was told someone actually died when it came back and struck them in the head. It seems a little far fetched now that I have more knowledge about guns, but all stories lead from somewhere so I was wondering how much truth there is to that story.

thanks again for your service
__________________

Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-28-2012, 10:13 AM
laabstract's Avatar
laabstract laabstract is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 1,857
iTrader: 54 / 98%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
Sorry to interrupt (Thank you all for your service BTW!!!) but is it true that the M9 had issues with the slide blowing completely off during recoil? I was maybe in junior high when I heard that but I've never gotten it confirmed. I was told someone actually died when it came back and struck them in the head. It seems a little far fetched now that I have more knowledge about guns, but all stories lead from somewhere so I was wondering how much truth there is to that story.

thanks again for your service
Most slide issues were due to +P loads and ++P
I am just not a fan of the M9 Ergos, the size for its capacity. I feel there are way better pistols out there for the price and I saw everything from from FTF FTE to bullets keyhole.
Although I did carry the M9 the only thing I really liked about it was the Crimson Trace grip I got issued.
__________________
In memory of Ricky Lee Turner, January 16th 2009 Baghdad Iraq

In memory of Rogelio Antonio Ramirez, August 26th 2007
Saqlawiyah Iraq

"most people quick to go to war haven't seen it."-
unknown

Check out my YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/DJCBX/videos

Last edited by laabstract; 07-28-2012 at 10:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-28-2012, 10:41 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Served active duty Air Force in an office job, so the M9 would be my only "war gun" in the event of a deployment.

My thoughts on it are as follows.Feel free to send me a nastygram via PM if you disagree.

The original Beretta model 92 wasn't designed to be a military firearm. The 1911 by comparison was designed from the ground up to be a military duty weapon. So was the Model 39 Smith and Wesson and derivatives, the Glock 17, the Browning Hi-power, CZ 75,and many other excellent guns. When Beretta set out to make the original , single action/double action frame safety model 92 back in the 1970s the designers didn't intend it for use as a military duty pistol.

For civil target shooting and sporting use the Beretta 92 its a great gun;large frame, longer barrel than most competitors, easy to use sights, aluminum frame, and low-recoil design. For someone who buys a gun and shoots 50 rounds through it every month before sticking it back in the safe, its a great choice.Ditto for competition. In both uses, a failed trigger spring and locking block jam aren't serious problems. A sport shooter can afford to replace the parts as needed without undue risk to life and limb.

The problem with the M9 from my perspective is that its the result of the US military turning a target pistol into a self-defense duty gun. The roles are NOT the same. Its like taking a Ford F150 pickup and spending gobs of cash turning it into a drag racing machine;true, itll run the 1/4 respectably if you put enough work into it, but its always going to lose to a Camaro designed from the jump to kick tail on the track.


A Sig 226 is meant to be run hard. So is a Glock. But a Beretta is made to be put in a safe and shot every other month. I realize this hurts a few peoples' feelings, but the DoD may as well have picked the .357 Desert Eagle and tried to make it a duty pistol. There's no way you're going to get a Magnum Research large caliber gun to work like a Glock 17 in a war environment no matter how much the government spends on revisions and changes;its just not made for that job.So it is with the Beretta.

This explains why in military circles the gun has such a spotty or average reputation, but in non military civil usage people generally like them. Target shooting at a static range is not the same thing as drawing down after low crawling though mucky soil , and a Beretta 92 is simply not intended for that kind of use. What the military is doing is attaching superchargers to pickups ,and pretending they have drag racing cars.

Bottom line :there's nothing wrong with buying an M9/92FS, as long as the owner understands that they are NOT buying a go to war duty gun. Id place an M9 in the same category as a Tanfoglio Witness Match competition gun or a Desert Eagle .50AE;they are civilian oriented handguns meant for sport and enjoyment. So long as that's understood, people would be much happier with the M9.

As far as the DoD is concerned, my advice is they should dump the M9 ASAP and go with something designed to be kicked in the mud from the ground up. The Sig P226 would make more sense, since its already in the government acquisition system.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-28-2012, 11:15 AM
blap59 blap59 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 102
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I love it. Very accurate, reliable. I think I just shoot it well from my time carrying it as an MP. It's just familiar.

No, it's not the best pistol ever, nor is it the best combat pistol, but I love shootin' it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-28-2012, 6:43 PM
navycorpsman's Avatar
navycorpsman navycorpsman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 708
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

M9 got the job done but i prefer a larger caliber than a M9(even though its in my avatar) I was very lucky and carried a P220 on my second tour and what a difference in reliability and accuracy and stopping power(obviously) haha. Just think there are better systems. But M9 is cheap, thats why SPECOPS are usually only ones to carry SIGP226 or 1911, if they dont want to bring there own. Infantry will still carry M9 and will for a long time.
__________________
If you Are not behind us, then take your place in front of us" Devil Doc, Corpsman Up!
Love My country and My fellow Vets
R.I.P my brothers
HM3 John D. House, HN Aaron A. Kent, HM2 Cesar O. Baez, HM3 Travis Youngblood, HM3 Christopher W. Thompson, HM2 Allan M. Cundanga Espiritu (True Heros)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-28-2012, 9:09 PM
todd2968's Avatar
todd2968 todd2968 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I was a range coach when we switched from 1911 to 9mm and it was night and day transition. The old 1911's we had would rattle when you shake them and the rifling must have been jacked, because they almost always missed the target. More experts in pistol than before started when we switched, but give it time they will wear out and be just as bad.
__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER
VFW LIFEMEMBER
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-28-2012, 9:33 PM
steelrain82's Avatar
steelrain82 steelrain82 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ventura county
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I was in a unit that did a lot of cqb training and shooting drills. I wasn't spec-ops but it was called FAST CO and they do get to work with spec-ops units from time to time. It is a security forces unit in the Marine Corps. People can hate on security forces but that is where the Marine Corps has its cadres that go around the Corps and teach non-lethal, riot control, and cqb. Now in my unit we would go to the range practically every week and shoot. And if we weren't shooting we were dry firing. I used the m9 everyday and I never had a problem with my pistol. Some guys did and some didn't. I know there are bigger calibers, better pistols, etc. but I really liked the pistol and even used it in combat. I like the size because of the reduced recoil. I also like it because I have high caps for it which will allow me to use them when I buy my own m9. I also like it because my wife will be able to use it because of the recoil. And I am really good with it. Now the only con I could think of is...size.
__________________


BNIB M40 Gas Mask (medium)

Last edited by steelrain82; 07-28-2012 at 9:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-28-2012, 11:38 PM
Petro6golf's Avatar
Petro6golf Petro6golf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: The Wastelands
Posts: 1,256
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I was in the Infantry in the Army. In my experience, it isnt the M9 that is the problem, its the Army training that is the problem. We went through all sorts of training and drills with the M4 but nothing with the M9 except taking it apart and shooting it. Why doesnt the military train soldiers with the M9 like they do in the police academy?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-28-2012, 11:51 PM
C.W.M.V.'s Avatar
C.W.M.V. C.W.M.V. is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,213
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Ditto, 11c here, and the problem was for sure the weapon.
Most of us that had M9's only used them to walk around on the fob. When we went on patrol we left them at the cp and took something reliable like old tokarevs for sidearms.
Hate the M9? No, I I loath it.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-29-2012, 12:10 AM
Arondos Arondos is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oakdale CA
Posts: 1,342
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'll take the 1911 over the M9 any day, any time, anywhere.
__________________
USN (SS) Retired
NRA/American Legion life member
"A shoot-out is better than a massacre!"
- David M. Bennett
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-29-2012, 3:59 AM
Stanksbeamen Stanksbeamen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 233
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I havent shot it yet in the military but I am looking to pick one up. I'd like to be familiar with it before hand.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-29-2012, 7:14 AM
Suvorov's Avatar
Suvorov Suvorov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bay Area (Peninsula)
Posts: 1,375
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

I love the gun. Carried it for 12 years, shot it competitively, and it never failed me once. I never did deploy to Iraq so I can't comment on the issues there, but it Europe we had very few issues even with the Checkmate magazines.

As I have stated on other threads, the biggest issues associated with it were generally due to poor training as a result of the command structure not placing any importance on quality handgun training. BN and lower maintenance from armorers was a joke and pistols would be deadlined for very simple issues and sometimes even non-issues. There were many times where one of my soldiers would complain of their pistol jamming up, I would take it, lube it up good, and shoot my qualification with it with no issues. The only legitimate gripe about the pistol is that the grip size was large for some very small soldiers, but not having any women in my units, this was not a real issue. I will say with 100% certainty that every issue we had with the pistols would only be exacerbated with a 1911 based 45 ACP.

Like many, I was skeptical of the Beretta at first having heard all the stories about it, but as it was going to be my issued weapon for most of my military career, I figured I better learn to love it. And once I gave it an honest shot, I learned to love it. I worked with plenty of guys who bad mouthed the pistol, but honestly, they just never gave it a chance nor were they as good of shooters as they thought they were (they even sucked with their 1911s and Glocks truth be told).

I've been out for 7 years now and even though I am issued a different pistol, the Beretta 92 remains my favorite pistol to shoot recreationally and competitively and it serves as my primary HD as well as SHTF pistol. My 1911s are only range guns.
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

Last edited by Suvorov; 07-29-2012 at 9:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-29-2012, 8:56 AM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,367
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
Sorry to interrupt (Thank you all for your service BTW!!!) but is it true that the M9 had issues with the slide blowing completely off during recoil?
Some of the early ones had issues with the locking block, and yes, there could be catastrophic failures that resulted in ... bad things. The problem was a combination of too-hot ammo and a couple of design areas that could have been - and were - improved. It's not an issue anymore.




Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
The original Beretta model 92 wasn't designed to be a military firearm.

Not sure where you're getting this from, but it's incorrect. The 92 was a development of the M1951, which was the Italian Army's post-war service pistol, and that was a development of the M1934, which was the Italian Army's WWII service pistol.





As far as my own experiences went ... I hated the M9 when I was in the Navy. It never felt right in my hands, and I got a lot of slide bite. Also, we had a lot of them break - not a single range trip saw less than 2 or 3 pistols red lined for problems.

Of course, most of these were training problems. Slide bite was caused by not knowing how to properly hold the damn thing. The failures that we saw were due to poorly trained armorers who didn't maintain the guns well because they didn't know how.

I've got a 92FS now, and I love it. I really couldn't be any more pleased with it.
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-29-2012, 10:03 AM
Massan's Avatar
Massan Massan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Does it do the job it was made for? Yes. Are there better options out there? Absolutely.

My main gripe with the M9 was the size, for such a large pistol it should hold more than the 15 rounds. Course the M9 was pretty much selected due to the vast numbers of safety features implemented in it cause "safety is paramount"...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-29-2012, 10:49 AM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,367
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Massan View Post
My main gripe with the M9 was the size, for such a large pistol it should hold more than the 15 rounds.

Is 20 enough for you?
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-29-2012, 10:52 AM
Scuba Steve33 Scuba Steve33 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Jose
Posts: 2,347
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard View Post
I was in the Infantry in the Army. In my experience, it isnt the M9 that is the problem, its the Army training that is the problem. We went through all sorts of training and drills with the M4 but nothing with the M9 except taking it apart and shooting it. Why doesnt the military train soldiers with the M9 like they do in the police academy?
How many did you have in your platoon? We only had two and they were issued to the 240 gunners. The gun teams went to M9 ranges regularly while the platoon only went about once a month. Did I think we (the rest of the platoon) needed more time at an M9 range? Not really because we only had two issued and both gun teams went regularly. If there were more issued to the platoon of course but I think the amount we went to the range for the M9 was adequate. Our 240 gunners had their own M4s as well and carried those on patrols.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-29-2012, 11:31 AM
Suvorov's Avatar
Suvorov Suvorov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bay Area (Peninsula)
Posts: 1,375
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuba Steve33 View Post
How many did you have in your platoon? We only had two and they were issued to the 240 gunners. The gun teams went to M9 ranges regularly while the platoon only went about once a month. Did I think we (the rest of the platoon) needed more time at an M9 range? Not really because we only had two issued and both gun teams went regularly. If there were more issued to the platoon of course but I think the amount we went to the range for the M9 was adequate. Our 240 gunners had their own M4s as well and carried those on patrols.
As an armor officer, pretty much every soldier in my BN had to qualify with the M9. Some also had to qualify with the M16 and M203. I can think of at least 3 occasions where I had prepared high quality pre-qual training session using the marksmanship team assets available to me. In every case, I was told not to waste the soldiers time and to push them through as they needed to go to EEO, Sexual Harassment, and Recruiting and Retention meetings which were deemed far more important to my BN and BG leadership than good pistol training. I was then instructed to disregard Army standards by allowing soldiers to fire their first engagement from single action. This was typical within 2 different state NGs as well as AD units. Keep in mind that I was combat arms, I can only imagine with the CS and CSS units did. In short, in my experience, the training the average soldier equipped with the M9 does not receive adequate pistol training. So when I hear about failures of the M9 in stopping Hajji, or issues with the M9 on deployment, I can't help but first think that the soldiers are not hitting their mark nor maintaining their weapons correctly.

When it comes to calibers, we see that the units that do a lot of shooting, namely the SEALs and Army SF seem quite pleased with the 9mm for general use.

When it comes to pistols, their *may* be better guns out there today, but at the time in 1985 the Beretta was one of only 2 that passed the test. To issue another pistol would be a total waste of money, especially considering the cost to capability ratio (pistol is a defensive weapon and really not responsible for much in way of enemy dead). Money would be far better spent on quality training than switching pistol platforms.
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-29-2012, 11:36 AM
Suvorov's Avatar
Suvorov Suvorov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bay Area (Peninsula)
Posts: 1,375
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Massan View Post
Course the M9 was pretty much selected due to the vast numbers of safety features implemented in it cause "safety is paramount"...
No, the M9 was selected because it was only one of two pistols the passed the military pistol trials. By that time it had already been adopted by the USAF by that point and was being used by Naval Special Warfare (they would later go to the P226 following the much sensationalized Beretta slide failures). In fact, one of the Army's complaints about he Beretta entry was that it considered the decocker/safety lever to be redundant.
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-29-2012, 12:53 PM
Scuba Steve33 Scuba Steve33 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Jose
Posts: 2,347
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suvorov View Post
As an armor officer, pretty much every soldier in my BN had to qualify with the M9. Some also had to qualify with the M16 and M203. I can think of at least 3 occasions where I had prepared high quality pre-qual training session using the marksmanship team assets available to me. In every case, I was told not to waste the soldiers time and to push them through as they needed to go to EEO, Sexual Harassment, and Recruiting and Retention meetings which were deemed far more important to my BN and BG leadership than good pistol training. I was then instructed to disregard Army standards by allowing soldiers to fire their first engagement from single action. This was typical within 2 different state NGs as well as AD units. Keep in mind that I was combat arms, I can only imagine with the CS and CSS units did. In short, in my experience, the training the average soldier equipped with the M9 does not receive adequate pistol training. So when I hear about failures of the M9 in stopping Hajji, or issues with the M9 on deployment, I can't help but first think that the soldiers are not hitting their mark nor maintaining their weapons correctly.

When it comes to calibers, we see that the units that do a lot of shooting, namely the SEALs and Army SF seem quite pleased with the 9mm for general use.

When it comes to pistols, their *may* be better guns out there today, but at the time in 1985 the Beretta was one of only 2 that passed the test. To issue another pistol would be a total waste of money, especially considering the cost to capability ratio (pistol is a defensive weapon and really not responsible for much in way of enemy dead). Money would be far better spent on quality training than switching pistol platforms.
We didn't have any M16s or 203s in our unit lol.

With only two per platoon it was at the bottom of training requirements for us as a platoon. The gun teams were training with them regularly, even though only the two gunners were issued them. I agree with you that in general the average soldier does not receive adequate training with the M9 (from my experience) but the average soldier is not issued one. At least in my unit, the ones who were issued them had plenty of training while the ones who weren't still had decent training. Again this is just what I saw with my unit.

All other weapons were trained with routinely to even include AT-4s. Leading up to deployment I spent more time at the SDM ranges than M4 ranges. For certain weapons (M9, M14) you didn't train as much if it wasn't something you were directly using. All other weapons were trained with regularly.

My platoon lived with an Army ODA team and they had a few different pistols but only .40 and .45. No 9mm.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-29-2012, 12:56 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.Steele View Post
Not sure where you're getting this from, but it's incorrect. The 92 was a development of the M1951, which was the Italian Army's post-war service pistol, and that was a development of the M1934, which was the Italian Army's WWII service pistol.
The model 92 was built as a separate design from the 1951. It shares nothing besides the general system of operation. The 1951 is single action with a single stack magazine. The 92 and descendants are double action with a double column magazine.

Note carefully that the original version of the 92 was a DA/SA with a frame mounted safety, capable of being carried condition 1. Once police agencies in Europe indicated they would be interested in using the Model 92 if Beretta changed the safety , so begat the 92S with the slide mounted decocker. The gun was not designed from the ground up to be used as a duty pistol in the same way the Sig P226 or Glock 17 were. The Glock 17 and Sig 226 were designed from the ground up to fulfill military contract requirements. By comparison, the Beretta 92 required substantial modification from its original design to achieve the same goal.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-29-2012, 1:17 PM
tbhracing tbhracing is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Sac
Posts: 5,528
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Great thread. I love the 92FS work horse even though they are bulky in my hands . But great info here, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-29-2012, 1:35 PM
Suvorov's Avatar
Suvorov Suvorov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bay Area (Peninsula)
Posts: 1,375
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuba Steve33 View Post
We didn't have any M16s or 203s in our unit lol.

With only two per platoon it was at the bottom of training requirements for us as a platoon. The gun teams were training with them regularly, even though only the two gunners were issued them. I agree with you that in general the average soldier does not receive adequate training with the M9 (from my experience) but the average soldier is not issued one. At least in my unit, the ones who were issued them had plenty of training while the ones who weren't still had decent training. Again this is just what I saw with my unit.
Pre deployment we didn't rate M4s and only had 1 M16A2 per tank + 4 more in the HQ section.

As the vast majority of my soldiers were tankers or other combat vehicle crewmen, the M9 was their primary self defense firearm outside the vehicle. In the grand scheme of things, time spent training on the tank was probably time better spent as the M9 was really just a means to get Hajji off the top or get back to the rear if knocked out. Still, the training should have been far better and certainly more important that EEO and other tripe. Given your avatar, I have a feeling your leadership was a little bit more combat oriented and less worried about the box checking than a typical pre-deployment command is worried about.

The pistol is an interesting weapon from the perspective that you will most likely never need to use it, but when you need to use it, you really need to use it.
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

Last edited by Suvorov; 07-29-2012 at 1:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-29-2012, 6:22 PM
HskrVern's Avatar
HskrVern HskrVern is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Salina, Utah
Posts: 802
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I did Navy ASF/SRFb for almost two years and didn't ever have to shoot it defense only qualifying every so often. It hit where I aimed, and only once did we have probs with them on a ship. EVERY damn M9 we drew from the armory jammed during one qual so bad they had to clear the range about a dozen times. The SEC-O wanted to get rid of the same old ammo we load with every day, hence the problem. Several times while arming up I refused ammo trays because there were always rounds that had been chambered so much that the bullets were set back about an eighth inch. Those rounds that were were no qualifying with were just wreaking havoc with the M9. Supprised one of us didn't have a kaboom.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-29-2012, 7:43 PM
tbhracing tbhracing is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Sac
Posts: 5,528
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Bump, great info here.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-29-2012, 8:13 PM
Scuba Steve33 Scuba Steve33 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Jose
Posts: 2,347
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suvorov View Post
Pre deployment we didn't rate M4s and only had 1 M16A2 per tank + 4 more in the HQ section.

As the vast majority of my soldiers were tankers or other combat vehicle crewmen, the M9 was their primary self defense firearm outside the vehicle. In the grand scheme of things, time spent training on the tank was probably time better spent as the M9 was really just a means to get Hajji off the top or get back to the rear if knocked out. Still, the training should have been far better and certainly more important that EEO and other tripe. Given your avatar, I have a feeling your leadership was a little bit more combat oriented and less worried about the box checking than a typical pre-deployment command is worried about.

The pistol is an interesting weapon from the perspective that you will most likely never need to use it, but when you need to use it, you really need to use it.
Makes sense with their priorities and training. I'm a firm believer you should train more with your primary weapons than anything else which is why I was never worried about extensive M9 training for myself. We still had to do stupid bull**** classes but not that often. Regardless of someone's job or position they should know the ins and outs of whatever weapon(s) they use or are around. We got into two TICs that the enemy was within hand grenade range. One was mounted in MAT-Vs, the other was at our COP. We still never used the M9s. We only had two so the chances were low but an M4 is short enough to operate in close quarters easily. Plus when they got that close we blew our claymores and threw M67s. For certain positions (as you said with tankers) I can see it being a useful tool but dismounted an M4 is preferred, at least for me. It's just not a practical combat weapon (handguns in general) if there is such a term.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-30-2012, 3:41 AM
the86d's Avatar
the86d the86d is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pinko-occupied ObamaDerkaderkastan
Posts: 5,820
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I LOVE IT!

Since it's cousin was issued to me many years back, I have wanted one, as if fits like a glove in my hand and safety is selectable with shooting-hand. My lady's SR9 is not as comfortable in my hand, and you can't chamber a round while keeping it on "Safe" on the SR9.

(The reason I love my AR is that I know it, am comfortable with it, and have slept with it too. Funny who would have thunk I purchased that same stuff I was issued... or pretty close anyway?)
__________________
"That's what governments are for - get in a man's way." - Captain Malcolm 'Mal' Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-30-2012, 6:21 AM
Bobby Ricigliano's Avatar
Bobby Ricigliano Bobby Ricigliano is offline
Mit Gott und Mauser
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The People's Glorious Republik of Southern Kalifornistan
Posts: 13,517
iTrader: 297 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by laabstract View Post
The ones I were issues had issues with FTF and FTE I find that the platform is a bit heavy and bulky.
The M9's I used in the Army were poorly maintained and subject to malfunctions. Because they were not issued, they stayed in the armory and we only saw them once a year.

Fast forward to 2000 and I was issued a brand new 92FS in the police academy. The weapon was mine only and my responsibility to maintain it. Guess what? 1000's and 1000's of rounds and NEVER any malfunctions. In fact the only signs of wear 12 years later are where the anodized aluminum gets scraped up on the frame. Barrel, locking block, everything else perfect. This gun was always maintained but never babied. Lots of duty ammo, ball, etc and 100%reliable.

So, my .02 is that the military M9 gets a bit of a bad rap because of iffy maintenance and the relative weakness of 9mm ball ammo. It is a great gun, can be run hard, shot relentlessly, and is extremely simple to disassemble and maintain. With 147 grain WW Ranger hollowpoints it is an ideal HD or duty pistol.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-30-2012, 9:47 AM
tbhracing tbhracing is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Sac
Posts: 5,528
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Speaking of military firearms, this came out today-

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-30-2012, 11:39 AM
AfghanVetOrcutt's Avatar
AfghanVetOrcutt AfghanVetOrcutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Milpitas
Posts: 392
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I loved it until I got out of the Army and bought my own HK USP. Now I realize that it isn't a great weapon but it isn't the worst either. It's got solid weight to it which helps keep recoil down and it is an accurate and easy to use weapon.

Unlike a lot of the folks I see posting here, I had tons of training with the M9. When I wasn't deployed I was doing my MP function on Ft. Hood and Ft. Knox. The training we did at Ft. Hood was joint with the DA (Dept of the Army) civilian contracted police they had paired up with MPs. We did a full week of M9 training including a steel competition on the last day of the training. The DA cops could use pretty much any pistol they wanted while we were issued M9s. I was the top shot from our class and some of the civvies had Sigs, 1911s and others I can't remember off the top of my head (this was 2007). I've qualified with the m9 countless times and easily scored 100% every time with one exception where I tried it like a gang banger (sideways). I carried an M9 the majority of my 6 years in the army. Deployed I did convoy security, EOD escort and ANP training my first deployment and my second I was attached to an infantry company going on dismounted patrols, setting up ambushes and clearing houses/villages. I quickly learned that the Afghan people were more afraid of our M9s than our .50cals. I want my own m9 because of the familiarity and nostalgia.

edit: I'm not a super duper pistol god. I shot a lot better with my m9 than I ever have with my USP.
__________________


“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” ~ Ronald Reagan
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-30-2012, 12:00 PM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,661
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbhracing View Post
Speaking of military firearms, this came out today-

Anyone ever get the REAL M11 pistol? The ones that actually have the markings on them? That were actually used by the military?
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-30-2012, 12:20 PM
tbhracing tbhracing is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Sac
Posts: 5,528
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Side note- Thank you to everyone here that served.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-30-2012, 1:07 PM
tanksoldier tanksoldier is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'd rather have a P226, but the M9 will do it's job if you do yours.
__________________
"I am a Soldier. I fight were I'm told and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-30-2012, 2:39 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,446
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmsenk View Post
Back when I was a baby private and got a chance to familiarize myself with it - and even qualify (strange for a 17yr old Infantryman) I thought it was great. I kept it clean, maintained it, and shot fine with it - always qualified expert (and by "Always" I mean like the 2 times I qualed with it) I didn't know what the old timers were talking about with it being a POS weapon.

Then, I turned 21, and I could start buying my own guns. And my friends bought guns. And I began hanging out at ranges, and talking to shooters who were more than "Standard issue" type guys. Thats when I realized just exactly how substandard the M-9 is. I don't hate it, and I know a few buddies who chose to buy one of their own. It gets the job done, and I wouldn't be opposed to carrying one... but I'd prefer a different system. Just about any other system that is decent (Sig Sauer, Colt 1911, FNP, Glock, H&K, etc.)

I won't ever knock it for being a bad gun... I just think there are some superior ones out there for the same price point, or lower.
i never qualed with it but i do own one and have had it for 20 years now and no issues at all. although i really did'nt shoot it that much for 15 years and only the last 5 or so years i have shot it more. since it is a pistol that i may and i mean may use in theatre it's good to know the pistol.

is it great no not really. there are better one yes. it does fit my hand quite well so i do enjoy shooting it. i have a 1911 and i like it as well. i'm not a huge pistol fan i only own 3 so what does that tell you.

i think the gun platform is good but the caliber should have been different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard View Post
I was in the Infantry in the Army. In my experience, it isnt the M9 that is the problem, its the Army training that is the problem. We went through all sorts of training and drills with the M4 but nothing with the M9 except taking it apart and shooting it. Why doesnt the military train soldiers with the M9 like they do in the police academy?
my guess would be that the majority of Soldiers since most of us here are Army. lets stick with that for the discussion. i have to say that most of us either carry a M16A2, A4 or a M4 that is our primary weapon of course and most of the time atleast in my experience that officers CO, XO, and Platoon Leaders, maybe the Platoon Seargant may have one. heck my company only has one M9 that is for the commander. maybe we'll get more with the 4 new LT's we just got.

but most of us train with our rifles since that is what we have. now i'm not opposed at all to training with all weapon systems that most of us will come in contact with ie, .50 cal, M240B, M249. heck most units only have select personell get to shoot them my unit being one of them i'm very vocal about this mentality as it is not good for only certain people to know the crew served weapons. i think pistol training would be a good thing but really it boils down to training time, ammo and the availability of the M9.

but i have to say it is very funny to see Lt. Col, Maj, and Capt. shoot the M9 and can't hit the broad side of a barn if it was 5 ft win front of them.

hope this makes some sense.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.

Last edited by chris; 07-30-2012 at 2:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-30-2012, 7:12 PM
tanksoldier tanksoldier is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suvorov View Post
The pistol is an interesting weapon from the perspective that you will most likely never need to use it, but when you need to use it, you really need to use it.
This is very true.

My last deployment we had 4 M9s and 2 M4s per tank, plus a "C" kit for the loader's M240.

We spent most of our time patrolling in HMMWVs: 2 hardtops with pintle mounted M240Cs and 2 troop carriers with field expedient pintle mounted M2HBs. The M9s became much more important than they usually are under those circumstances.

I successfully engaged the enemy twice with the M9. Did I wish I had a bigger gun? Yes, but if I had a 1911 or a bazooka I'd still have wished for a bigger/better gun. Engaging the enemy with an M4 and the M240 I wished for a bigger gun then, too.

We had NO training with pintle mounted machine guns prior to deployment, the HMMWV patrolling was required by the terrain and cobbled together from available assets, and M4 and M9 "training" consisted of qualifying... that was 2004 and things are much different now. My personal experience with firearms stood me in much greater stead than most of my military training, but the Army's firearms training has improved vastly since that time.
__________________
"I am a Soldier. I fight were I'm told and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-30-2012, 7:25 PM
Suvorov's Avatar
Suvorov Suvorov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bay Area (Peninsula)
Posts: 1,375
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanksoldier View Post
My personal experience with firearms stood me in much greater stead than most of my military training, but the Army's firearms training has improved vastly since that time.
That is very good to know! I got out in 05 and never in 12 years of service did I see the mythical dismount kit for the M240.

Did you have to contend with the Check Mate magazine issues in the sand box or did you have better ones?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
but i have to say it is very funny to see Lt. Col, Maj, and Capt. shoot the M9 and can't hit the broad side of a barn if it was 5 ft win front of them.
I have film evidence of my BN CMDR snatching a round into the dirt 1 yard in front of the 7 yard pop up target.

He was the one who got all pissy about me wasting soldiers times with a SART team.
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

Last edited by Suvorov; 07-30-2012 at 7:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:58 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.