New Army Handgun: We're Really Doing This

Status
Not open for further replies.
Take it for what it's worth guys, but I'm sharing this article with you all. I don't agree 100 percent with the author, who is a very good personal friend, but looking at it objectively without brand loyalty, I cannot say that I don't agree with the majority of his article.

http://www.gruntworks11b.com/blogs/g...ense-of-the-m9

My personal experience with the M9 was excellent, and the two years that I carried it saw it shot extensively with no issues. Not saying it is perfect but then again, nothing is. For the job I was assigned and for what I was tasked to do, I had complete and utter faith in my M9 backing up my Mossberg should I have needed to transition.

For the record it's not my first choice but it's what I was issued, and I abused the heck out of it, just as I would any other issue pistol regardless of brand.
Click to expand...

Good read -- thanks for the link.

I think it goes well with this: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/daniel-zimmerman/beretta-m9-gets-respect/. More interesting than the column are the comments from all the vets.
 
Yes, I wonder about this "worn out" business. I heard the same thing about the M1911A1s in my day, yet I'd bet good money 95% sat in the racks for years, were never fired, at the most received a dusting off.
 
Yes, I wonder about this "worn out" business. I heard the same thing about the M1911A1s in my day, yet I'd bet good money 95% sat in the racks for years, were never fired, at the most received a dusting off.
Click to expand...

You can read the experiences of vets in the two links above (including the comments) to see otherwise.
 
IMHO,I don't think the military will
buy a Striker fired gun. I believe they
want a quick visual if the gun is in
battery. Too much training.
 
Last edited:
Good info above. When I was an 11b A gunner and then MG I was issued a sidearm, 1911 and then M9.(BTW having a sidearm when your primary weapon is locked into a tripod in a hole in the ground is a good thing.) No training just qualification. These guns need lube and proper maintenance. Later when I went to the Beretta armorer school my eyes were opened. Major complaint of Beretta was that DOD owned M9 and bought replacement parts from any vendor they wanted not OEM parts, lack of maintenance and proper lubrication. One vendor supplied replacement grips that were one sided, (cookie cutter copies where the left side was backwards!) Now, being in LE, I can see the advantage of using lower maintenance polymer guns with one trigger pull. In regards to ammunition I don't believe we will ever deviate from military ball and therefore the current studies by the FBI and others are skewed. Yes 9mm HST/Ranger/Gold dot do very well but don't think that Joe Grunt will be issued anything other than ball ammo. If you're a Chief and replacing firearms for your PD you have the option of an $800 Sig that requires proper lube and higher parts replacement or a $400 M&P or Glock that can be fixed on the fly for cheap and run better without lube.
 
IMHO,I don't think the military will
buy a Striker fired gun. I believe they
want a quick visual if the gun is in
battery. Two much training.
Click to expand...

Not mutually exclusive. For example the Walther PPS has a red nubbin protruding out the back of the slide when a round is chambered. You can feel it in pitch black with your finger or when holstering to make sure nothing is putting pressure on the trigger.
 
Not mutually exclusive. For example the Walther PPS has a red nubbin protruding out the back of the slide when a round is chambered. You can feel it in pitch black with your finger or when holstering to make sure nothing is putting pressure on the trigger.
Click to expand...

Not stepping on your toes, but that red nub protrudes when the striker is cocked. That can be with or without a round chambered.

Frankly the comment by giaquir makes no sense. There is nothing about a striker fired pistol that means you can't see when a pistol is in battery, nor is there anything special about a hammer fired pistol for determining if a pistol is in battery. I think he meant cocked.
 
my VP9 has a little red dot visible in back when the pistol is cocked, and the extractor has a visible and tactile indicator of a round chambered. also has front serrations if you want to do a press check.
 
Let me point out that the very first version of the Beretta 92 had the thumb safety on the frame, not the slide.

I do not believe that this had a decocking function, but other companies have made frame mounted thumb safeties that also moved down to decock. So it can be done. In fact, the Taurus 92 is a version of the early Beretta 92, and Taurus eventually changed the frame mounted safety to also decock.

I also would like to see the slide safety be replaced by a frame safety which also decocks.

Bart Noir
 
giaquir said:
No Tonto, The Ruger sr9 is not
a robust design, but it is a striker fired
pistol not hammer fired.
Click to expand...

But it's so simple, a GI can do it.....

DSC00067.JPG
 
seeker_two
Click to expand...

Now is that already MILSPEC worded backwards? Or should it read "Up When Loaded"?.....and where the heck is the comma :D Next thing you know there'd be another acronym recruits would have to learn....I can just hear the DI screaming "IS YOUR WEAPON DISPLAYING UWL!!!!"

Problem Solved, the .50GI:
gi_50_1_of_4_1024x1024.jpg


Need a Striker Fired Sidearm? Got your U'rah right here.....
W7314_SI_50giConversion_4599_COMPO1-354x200.jpg
 
I really think the military should adopt a P30V3 in 9mm and use better ammo. The P39 is an ergonomic wonder and can fit every shooter. They would stick with da/sa and a safety.
 
You can tell that a Glock is cocked if the trigger is forward. If it is not cocked the trigger sits back. Pretty visible and tactile indicator.
 
True. But its only visible in the daylight, and the trigger shouldnt be used as a tactile indicator of whether or not its cocked/loaded.
The finger shouldnt be inside of the guard until your ready to shoot, thats not when you want to find out its not loaded...

The Glocks ejector indicator works great, and its right where your index finger should be prior to shooting.
 
If they are going to go to a true modular system. Why not a 5.56 round that you can add a stock to and then convert it to a rifle. One ammo to carry. Really modular. Something more revolutionary instead the of the same old thing. Why go to another 9mm besides what they have now?

At the end of the day, I don't think they will go away from the 9mm Nato round. Some smaller groups or special operations might have a different caliber or weapon, but not general issue. While the pistol is important, it is not as important as the rifle and other weapons.
 
Major complaint of Beretta was that DOD owned M9 and bought replacement parts from any vendor they wanted not OEM parts, lack of maintenance and proper lubrication. One vendor supplied replacement grips that were one sided, (cookie cutter copies where the left side was backwards!)
Click to expand...

Including even the freaking locking blocks! In its infinite wisdom, DoD rounded up cheap, soft-steel aftermarket locking blocks that would break after anywhere from a few hundred to just a few thousand rounds. A predictably penny-wise, pound-foolish move by the beancounters, of course, since the properly-hardened OEM part will last several times longer than even the best of the aftermarket trash.

And then, as far as everyone who sees it is concerned, it's the fault of the pistol and its manufacturer when the garbage non-OEM part breaks after only moderate use. :rolleyes:
 
A couple quick updates. First Beretta has said that they were contacted after the initial decision to say it was not final.

http://kitup.military.com/2015/01/army-contacts-beretta-usa-m9a3.html

At the same time Beretta has gone on somewhat of an industry blitz with articles such as this:

http://kitup.military.com/2015/01/range-berettas-m9a3-2.html

And a series of posts on their Facebook page extolling the virtues of the M9 series and why the military shouldn't change:

http://www.guns.com/2015/01/12/opinion-the-army-needs-the-m9a3/

It would seem the M9 contract will have to pried from Beretta's cold dead hands as far as they're concerned.

-TR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top