First off, I have trouble with any article that contains the phrase “stopping power” with regard to handguns. I also am loathe to be forced to comment on the horrendous grammar witnessed throughout the article.
The author claims the 9mm is essentially inferior to the 45 ACP, then goes on to say he prefers the lighter, faster bullet. So much for declining the obvious.
He goes on to claim “better shot placement” ability is the reason. The theory he subscribes to relies on the “lowest common denominator” as you can derive from his military training “results”. Quicker proficiency does not equate to better terminal performance. Or more simply put, saving money does not always equate to saving lives.
How a 9mm is inherently more accurate than a 45 ACP is identified by the author as resulting from recoil. I have owned a 92 Beretta, a P226 (both in 9mm) and own 1911’s. The 9mm’s both have more “recoil” than the 1911’s if you define recoil as a causal factor with regard to bullet placement (this is the essence of his claim). Muzzle rise or “flip” is generally greater on the 9mm’s I have described. How he can make this preposterous claim and not expect broad-based criticism is indicative of his lack of experience with the articles in question. I have also fired some of the Army’s 1911’s during the 1980’s and many of them were quite worn and sloppy. Accuracy was mediocre with most. Comparing 1911’s of which “The last shipment of M1911A1 pistols to the Department of Defense was back in 1945” to those 9mm’s delivered since 1985 is pretty poor form. He admits this, but insinuates that even if new 1911’s were procured, they would somehow still be inferior.
As far as the M9 being “popular”, few of the Desert Storm vets I know are so enamored with the Beretta. Sand seemed to be the largest complaint. Most of the military folks I know prefer the M11 (P228) and in most units you will find a continual struggle over who gets to carry the units fewer M11’s.
Which “gun experts” is the author referring to when he says they find cocked and locked carry unsafe? The “unsafe practice” of lowering the hammer on a 1911 is likely done several thousand times a day in the United States alone, not to mention many other single action autos or even hybrids like the CZ-75 series. Sure, some negligent or accidental discharges occur, but they do not mandate the practice “unsafe”.
“Covering fire” with a pistol. True idiocy. If it truly comes down to that, somebody has made a severe tactical error. We are talking combat troops. Ft. Benning sounds like infantry to me. Surely in his brief tenure at Ft. Benning, the author would have learned a bit more about small arms and their employment.
“However, by cocking the hammer the trigger is well within reach for those with the smallest hands”. The time factor in pistol engagements is generally the largest consideration. Yet the author prefers those same troops who require a lesser cartridge in order to gain quicker proficiency to cock the pistol under life and death criteria. The other alternative is to double action the pistol which only requires a “16.5 lb” trigger pull. I’d love to see these same “lowest common denominator” troops double action groups compared to those of a similar condition “cocked and locked” 1911.
The comparison of finishes of pistols 40 years apart in delivery is absurd.
That “red paint” on the extractor of my Beretta 92 was all but gone within several hundred rounds.
The author sounds like another gun-show/gun-shop commando with good intent and poor subjectivity.
Who goes out and spends $5,000 to do something like this without being directly affiliated with Beretta? Or makes a living from it? At a minimum, with an axe to grind? I cannot help but question if in fact the “test” ever occurred at all.
Anyone have any information on the “author” or the date of the “test”?
That said, if I couldn’t carry Sig-Sauers, I’d carry Berettas. They are some of the finest firearms available.
The author claims the 9mm is essentially inferior to the 45 ACP, then goes on to say he prefers the lighter, faster bullet. So much for declining the obvious.
He goes on to claim “better shot placement” ability is the reason. The theory he subscribes to relies on the “lowest common denominator” as you can derive from his military training “results”. Quicker proficiency does not equate to better terminal performance. Or more simply put, saving money does not always equate to saving lives.
How a 9mm is inherently more accurate than a 45 ACP is identified by the author as resulting from recoil. I have owned a 92 Beretta, a P226 (both in 9mm) and own 1911’s. The 9mm’s both have more “recoil” than the 1911’s if you define recoil as a causal factor with regard to bullet placement (this is the essence of his claim). Muzzle rise or “flip” is generally greater on the 9mm’s I have described. How he can make this preposterous claim and not expect broad-based criticism is indicative of his lack of experience with the articles in question. I have also fired some of the Army’s 1911’s during the 1980’s and many of them were quite worn and sloppy. Accuracy was mediocre with most. Comparing 1911’s of which “The last shipment of M1911A1 pistols to the Department of Defense was back in 1945” to those 9mm’s delivered since 1985 is pretty poor form. He admits this, but insinuates that even if new 1911’s were procured, they would somehow still be inferior.
As far as the M9 being “popular”, few of the Desert Storm vets I know are so enamored with the Beretta. Sand seemed to be the largest complaint. Most of the military folks I know prefer the M11 (P228) and in most units you will find a continual struggle over who gets to carry the units fewer M11’s.
Which “gun experts” is the author referring to when he says they find cocked and locked carry unsafe? The “unsafe practice” of lowering the hammer on a 1911 is likely done several thousand times a day in the United States alone, not to mention many other single action autos or even hybrids like the CZ-75 series. Sure, some negligent or accidental discharges occur, but they do not mandate the practice “unsafe”.
“Covering fire” with a pistol. True idiocy. If it truly comes down to that, somebody has made a severe tactical error. We are talking combat troops. Ft. Benning sounds like infantry to me. Surely in his brief tenure at Ft. Benning, the author would have learned a bit more about small arms and their employment.
“However, by cocking the hammer the trigger is well within reach for those with the smallest hands”. The time factor in pistol engagements is generally the largest consideration. Yet the author prefers those same troops who require a lesser cartridge in order to gain quicker proficiency to cock the pistol under life and death criteria. The other alternative is to double action the pistol which only requires a “16.5 lb” trigger pull. I’d love to see these same “lowest common denominator” troops double action groups compared to those of a similar condition “cocked and locked” 1911.
The comparison of finishes of pistols 40 years apart in delivery is absurd.
That “red paint” on the extractor of my Beretta 92 was all but gone within several hundred rounds.
The author sounds like another gun-show/gun-shop commando with good intent and poor subjectivity.
Who goes out and spends $5,000 to do something like this without being directly affiliated with Beretta? Or makes a living from it? At a minimum, with an axe to grind? I cannot help but question if in fact the “test” ever occurred at all.
Anyone have any information on the “author” or the date of the “test”?
That said, if I couldn’t carry Sig-Sauers, I’d carry Berettas. They are some of the finest firearms available.
