M9 service pistol replacement

[voodoo54]

If your like me and despise the M9 Beretta with a passion, what pistol would you like to see all the services switch to?

1. I know certain organizations in each of the services have switched to different pistols.

2. Being an Infantryman I know pistols play a limited role on the battlefield.

On that I do think they play a role and the services should carry the best.

For my part I think we should go back to the .45 caliber and on that should go with the SIG P220. No I dont own stock in SIG. They are solid pistols which are easy to disassemble and clean. Anyway let me know what you think.

[yqtszhj]

For my part I think we should go back to the .45 caliber and on that should go with the SIG P220. No I dont own stock in SIG. They are solid pistols which are easy to disassemble and clean. Anyway let me know what you think.

What you said right there about the Sig.

[ripley16]

The Beretta is a very good pistol. It fulfills the need. Why needlessly spend money we don't have?

[Bawanna]

Personally I thought it was a stupid move to switch to the Beretta in the first place.

A waste of money and effort.

I have no issue really with the Beretta, the dept here had them for years, very few issues but I do like the tried and true 45.

The old Colt served well and it seems the cream of the crop in many military and LE organizations get them back first chance they can.
Should be plenty good enough for the rest of us too.

[ripley16]

Personally I thought it was a stupid move to switch to the Beretta in the first place.

A waste of money and effort.

I have no issue really with the Beretta, the dept here had them for years, very few issues but I do like the tried and true 45.

The old Colt served well and it seems the cream of the crop in many military and LE organizations get them back first chance they can.
Should be plenty good enough for the rest of us too.

There were primarily three reasons the switch was made.
* The adoption of the 9mm round as in line with NATO requirements and standardization. The same reason multiple countries adopted the 5.56x45.
* The stock of 1911A1s were worn out and in need of replacement in general.
* The reliability of the 1911A1 was substandard to more modern handguns. These standards were elevated to higher levels that the 1911 could not meet. Only two guns met the standard. Even my beloved HK entrant failed in the reliability tests.

I might add that the 1911 style handguns that are in (limited) use, come with a price tag many times that of replacement M9s. Those units that feel they need the 1911, get the 1911. Those that have no need, don't get it. A wise choice.

[Bawanna]

Yup, NATO, kind of like the UN. Third world grass hut nations telling the most powerful nation in the world (barely but still) what to do.

Otherwise good points.

[gb6491]

There were primarily three reasons the switch was made.
* The adoption of the 9mm round as in line with NATO requirements and standardization. The same reason multiple countries adopted the 5.56x45.
* The stock of 1911A1s were worn out and in need of replacement in general.
* The reliability of the 1911A1 was substandard to more modern handguns. These standards were elevated to higher levels that the 1911 could not meet. Only two guns met the standard. Even my beloved HK entrant failed in the reliability tests.

I might add that the 1911 style handguns that are in (limited) use, come with a price tag many times that of replacement M9s. Those units that feel they need the 1911, get the 1911. Those that have no need, don't get it. A wise choice.
That's the first time I've seen that argument made. The 1911 pistols I used on active duty (and saw in use by others) were every bit as reliable as the M9s that replaced them in the units I was assigned to. As to standards being "elevated to higher levels that the 1911 could not meet", that's supposition: the 1911 was never a player in the XM9 Service Pistol Trials (remember that was conducted to determine a 9mm replacement for it and the revolvers then in use). Some might argue that the second place pistol won the trial as the Beretta was chosen over the P226 because of cost factors.
FWIW, we did see an increase in pistol scores once we went to the Beretta, but the pistol qualification course was also revamped and, IMO, made quite a bit easier. That's not said to discount the Beretta, those that were issued to me were reliable/accurate pistols (as 9mms go).
Regards,
Greg

[ripley16]

As to standards being "elevated to higher levels that the 1911 could not meet", that's supposition: the 1911 was never a player in the XM9 Service Pistol Trials (remember that was conducted to determine a 9mm replacement for it and the revolvers then in use).

Whereas it wasn't a "player", the 1911 was in fact tested alongside the other pistols as a control and in reliability/ failure tests. the 1911 had many times the failure rate of the Beretta and Sig, (the two finalists). Had it been in competition with the others the 1911 would have been eliminated from consideration.

[gb6491]

Whereas it wasn't a "player", the 1911 was in fact tested alongside the other pistols as a control and in reliability/ failure tests. the 1911 had many times the failure rate of the Beretta and Sig, (the two finalists). Had it been in competition with the others the 1911 would have been eliminated from consideration.
That's true, 1911s were used as a control in the XM9 Service Pistol Trials (conducted to find a 9mm service pistol). These were off the rack pistols against top manufacturers trials specific pistols. In 1981 testing, these old 1911s actually had better reliability than the Beretta. In the 1984 testing, the SIG and Beretta pistols were much improved and did much, much better. However, the old war horses were the only pistols to pass the the environmental tests 100%. Reliability wise, in 1984, the 1911s placed behind (in order) the SIG, Beretta, S&W entries, but ahead of the HK entry:
http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf
Regards,
Greg

[voodoo54]

There were primarily three reasons the switch was made.
* The adoption of the 9mm round as in line with NATO requirements and standardization. The same reason multiple countries adopted the 5.56x45.
* The stock of 1911A1s were worn out and in need of replacement in general.
* The reliability of the 1911A1 was substandard to more modern handguns. These standards were elevated to higher levels that the 1911 could not meet. Only two guns met the standard. Even my beloved HK entrant failed in the reliability tests.

Yes we should of forced the adoption of the American .45 over the European 9mm just like we forced the adoption of the American 5.56mm and 7.62mm. The Beretta was first issued back in the mid 80's so they are pushing 30 years. The M9s are getting physically old and need to be replaced. The Beretta was a good pistol (minus the caliber) back in the early/mid eighties but pistol design has come a looong way in the last thirty years and it's time to replace them. So even speaking of strictly budgetary reasons they need to be replaced. If the services can find billions of dollars to waste on 18 different uniforms I'm sure they can find 10-15 million and buy new, updated handguns across the board!

[ripley16]

... they need to be replaced.

They are being replaced as we speak (type). Beretta was awarded a very large contract a while back for a wave of new M9s.
http://www.berettausa.com/usarmyawardsnewberettam9pistolcontract/

[voodoo54]

Oh great, another 30 years of garbage pistols.

[Bawanna]

Can't say for sure but my spidey senses tell me your not a big Beretta fan?

Personally I don't think it was or is a good choice for the military either.

I know a few returning military guys just returned from the sand box and they although issued them seldom bothered to carry them on their patrols etc.

[ripley16]

Oh great, another 30 years of garbage pistols.

Why do you think the Beretta 92 is garbage? It's robust, reliable, accurate and easy to maintain. What more do you want in a service sidearm? In years to come the U.S. will adopt a polymer sidearm, but I see nothing wrong with the Beretta design. It has served well.

[JustinN]

I don't think you'll see the .45 come back, simply for capacity reasons. Switching to the Sig 220 would halve the number of rounds in the magazine. I believe that is also a factor in the 5.56 over the 7.62, the number of rounds held in a magazine and the weight of said rounds. 30 rounds of 5.56 takes up less room and weighs much less than 30 rounds of 7.62. The same is true of 9mm. 9mm is also easier to shoot and manage to shoot, especially for new shooters. I've seen this over and over, having a new shooter shoot a Glock 17 and a Glock 21, they pick and do better with the 17 over and over again.

I'm not arguing for the Beretta, I think they'd be better off with a Glock, just saying I don't think you'll see them get away from the 9mm. It seems the main idea of firepower behind the military is quantity over quality. More bullets are better than bigger bullets for the most part.

[Bawanna]

Too much NATO influence. Glock would be a bad choice. Too many guys would shoot themselves in the foot.
I think that's one reason the 1911 was phased out. Guys never use them since the rifle is the primary weapon so they want to play with them since they are cool.

A lifer navy guy here told me they did away with sidearms on Navy ship watches for this very reason. Issued rifles. M14's since AR's bounce right off boat hulls.

[RedRyder]

EVERYBODY'S gunna have their own opinion here so here's mine. They apparently aren't getting away from the 9mm and so my choices for replacement would be one of three. The Sig P226 or P229 and the M&P9, . Never had an M&P but the Sigs for me have been absolutely flawless with anything I put in them. Friends of mine with the M&P swear by it too.

A penny for your thoughts was what was asked for here and so this was my two cents worth.:yo:

[voodoo54]

Why do you think the Beretta 92 is garbage? It's robust, reliable, accurate and easy to maintain. What more do you want in a service sidearm? In years to come the U.S. will adopt a polymer sidearm, but I see nothing wrong with the Beretta design. It has served well.

It's just a heavy, clunky pistol that shoots 9mm. There have been much better pistols out there for years that are lighter, more ergonomic, simpler to shoot, and carry more rounds than the M9. If we stick with the 9mm because as some other posters say, it's easier to shoot, then go with the Glock 17 or the M&P9.

[yqtszhj]

Glock would be a bad choice. Too many guys would shoot themselves in the foot.


That sounds about right.

[dkmatthews]

It surprises me that the M9 was adopted as the "service pistol" so early, and yet I didn't see any during my term of service, 1990 to 1997. I served on two different ships and we only had 1911s and M14s. The first ship was an old Perry class frigate and we were used to getting hand-me-downs from the bigger & newer ships. The second ship was a brand new Burke class destroyer (plankowner, here) and we had the best of everything -- including the 1911s.

[Bawanna]

It surprises me that the M9 was adopted as the "service pistol" so early, and yet I didn't see any during my term of service, 1990 to 1997. I served on two different ships and we only had 1911s and M14s. The first ship was an old Perry class frigate and we were used to getting hand-me-downs from the bigger & newer ships. The second ship was a brand new Burke class destroyer (plankowner, here) and we had the best of everything -- including the 1911s.

That follows with what my retired Chief buddy/coworker said. They always had 1911's and M14's because AR's were worthless against boats. I assume they felt the same way about the 9mm's.
He still carries a 1911 (full size) as a back up gun in vest holster.

[jeepster09]

If your like me and despise the M9 Beretta with a passion, what pistol would you like to see all the services switch to?

1. I know certain organizations in each of the services have switched to different pistols.

2. Being an Infantryman I know pistols play a limited role on the battlefield.

On that I do think they play a role and the services should carry the best.

For my part I think we should go back to the .45 caliber and on that should go with the SIG P220. No I dont own stock in SIG. They are solid pistols which are easy to disassemble and clean. Anyway let me know what you think.

Hard to beat a Beretta and easy to strip and clean. Just add Wolf trigger spring and they last forever....maybe just switch to a model 96.

[RevRay]

I can't say that I have much of an opinion on this whole subject to be honest. Many moons ago when I was Infantry I did qualify Expert with the 1911, but I never really carried one other than when I was the payroll officer. Back then my standard carry weapon was the M16. And later as a Chaplain I did qualify Expert again with both the 1911 and a Beretta, just as a "hanging with the guys" kind of thing. But since I never really carried a pistol in any kind of serious way ... Chaplains are non-combatants ... I never really had much of an opinion.

[Barth]

If your like me and despise the M9 Beretta with a passion, what pistol would you like to see all the services switch to?

1. I know certain organizations in each of the services have switched to different pistols.

2. Being an Infantryman I know pistols play a limited role on the battlefield.

On that I do think they play a role and the services should carry the best.

For my part I think we should go back to the .45 caliber and on that should go with the SIG P220. No I dont own stock in SIG. They are solid pistols which are easy to disassemble and clean. Anyway let me know what you think.

I own a Sig P220 45.
It's a fine weapon.
Reliable, accurate and easy to clean.

But I personally prefer my HK USP45 Tactical.
It's all those things plus has a 12+1 capacity.
Me likey

[berettabone]

I also own a Sig P220 .45..........It's a fine firearm.........reliable, accurate, and easy to clean. But I personally prefer my Beretta 96 .40 cal.........It's all of those things plus has a 11+1 capacity. Me likey. It's what makes the world go round...............

[warbird1]

I have a Taurus PT92 in stainless in my collection. Beautiful, accurate and dependable. Made in 1998. Doesn't mean I don't love my 1911's. My Ruger and my Magnum Research are both great. Come to think of it...I love all my guns.

[muggsy]

I was told that the three biggest problems with the 92FS are the open barrel design, the double stack magazine making the grip too large for small hands and the slide mounted safety inadvertently being activated while clearing a jamb or failure to fire. I like the Sig 220 or the FNH FNX as a replacement for the 92 FS

[yqtszhj]

But since I never really carried a pistol in any kind of serious way ... Chaplains are non-combatants ... I never really had much of an opinion.

That's interesting. A guy I work with was a "Chaplains Assistant" in the Air Guard. He qualified with and would hang with the Chaplain and carried the gun.

[ripley16]

That's interesting. A guy I work with was a "Chaplains Assistant" in the Air Guard. He qualified with and would hang with the Chaplain and carried the gun.

My brother-in-law served in Iraq as a Chaplains Assistant, as a MSGT, in the Army. He carried a M16 and was unofficially the Chaplain's bodyguard.

[Sage]

I don't think the Beretta is a bad pistol. I just think 45 cal. is a better choice for the military. I would like to see the Army go with the P220 or the Colt 1911 that the Marines went with.

[ripley16]

I don't think the Beretta is a bad pistol. I just think 45 cal. is a better choice for the military. I would like to see the Army go with the P220 or the Colt 1911 that the Marines went with.

Marines still field the M9 Beretta. Only Marine Special units purchased the M45. It is way too expensive and far less reliable for general use, .45acp or not.

[gb6491]

Marines still field the M9 Beretta. Only Marine Special units purchased the M45. It is way too expensive and far less reliable for general use, .45acp or not.
I've not heard of any reliability issues with the M45A1.
Do you have a reference or personal experience with it? I'd be interested in reading any material you can provide.
Regards,
Greg

[CJB]

Glad to see this old argument flaring up again.

Gotta be a reason that the elites seem to feel the 45 is a better choice. Gotta be a reason those who can supply their own sidearm, most often choose a 45 (except one knucklehead I knew who carries a model 60 smith!)

[ripley16]

I've not heard of any reliability issues with the M45A1.
Do you have a reference or personal experience with it? I'd be interested in reading any material you can provide.
Regards,
Greg

I'll provide the article that sprang to mind when I wrote if I can google it again. I think it was in the "Military times"... I think. It referred to the higher maintenance requirements for the 1911s. The new Colt M45 pistol is going to special operators, (who shoot a huge amount of ammo through their weapons), not general riflemen units. The purchase was for only a few thousand pistols and at a dollar amount to provide replacement parts and guns several times over. The Colts were noted to be breaking around the 12,000 round mark.

I'm not so much disparaging the 1911, as pointing out the fact that there are other guns, just as good. This platform was chosen mainly for it's price point, modernized features and accuracy. It is accurate, may have a nice trigger and is well known by many shooters, however there are, IMHO, better choices that were overlooked simply because the Marines are locked into a 1911 mindset, tunnel vision, so to speak and only tested 1911 platforms. The 1911 platform is too heavy and has too little capacity, but these traits are being ignored because they simply want a 1911.

[gb6491]

I'll provide the article that sprang to mind when I wrote if I can google it again. I think it was in the "Military times"... I think. It referred to the higher maintenance requirements for the 1911s. The new Colt M45 pistol is going to special operators, (who shoot a huge amount of ammo through their weapons), not general riflemen units. The purchase was for only a few thousand pistols and at a dollar amount to provide replacement parts and guns several times over. The Colts were noted to be breaking around the 12,000 round mark.

I'm not so much disparaging the 1911, as pointing out the fact that there are other guns, just as good. This platform was chosen mainly for it's price point, modernized features and accuracy. It is accurate, may have a nice trigger and is well known by many shooters, however there are, IMHO, better choices that were overlooked simply because the Marines are locked into a 1911 mindset, tunnel vision, so to speak and only tested 1911 platforms. The 1911 platform is too heavy and has too little capacity, but these traits are being ignored because they simply want a 1911.
Thanks, I look forward to reading the article.

Photos/reports did surface about some rail gun slides developing cracks at about that round count, but that has already been addressed:
http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=3134.
On topic and from the same site:
http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=3203

I'm on-board with you there:)

Being a retired Marine, I'm glad some of us (especially folks at the tip of the spear) got what they wanted and know works.

Regards,
Greg

[Bawanna]

I have a Beretta 92 and several 1911's. I like the Beretta but I could sell it tomorrow without remorse.

Ain't parting with no 1911's. I was never anywhere near the tip of the spear, they use guys like me for the shaft but the 1911's stay.