U.S. Military sidearm......

Given the choice between 9mm FMJ and .45 FMJ, I'll take the .45 any day. But, given the politics of the issue, I suppose it was not surprising that we went with 9mm.

But I think there are better choices than the Beretta. As others have pointed out, the whole gun itself is large, the grip is too large for people with small hands (perhaps not as much of an issue at the time of the selection, but more of an issue now with more women joining the services), the frame-mounted safety/decocker is hard to reach, and DA/SA has the issue of the transition from double-action to single-action.

In terms of easier training, I think that is actually very important in the military. It's my impression than firearms training in the military is getting less and less emphasis, particularly for handguns. A gun which has a shorter training time is better, IMHO.

No, I don't think we should have stayed with the M1911. And as you can see by my handle, I do love my M1911s. I hate to bring this up, as it usually starts a flame war, but I will anyways. I love my M1911s, but my Glocks have been more reliable. And most of the more recent designs, like Glocks and Sigs, are significantly simpler to field-strip than a M1911. I'm not saying that the M1911 is hard to field strip. But the Glock sure is easier, and thus it would take less time to teach recruits how to field strip it. So that time could be spent teaching them something else.

I'm not a fan of DA/SA, as I think it takes more training and practice to master the transition from double-action to single-action. I prefer guns with a consistent trigger pull, e.g., SA, DAO, or striker-fired. The only issue with DAO guns, is that the trigger pull needs to be reduced a bit, so that it is no more than 8 lbs or so.

I think better choices than the Beretta would be Glock 17 with NY trigger, or a USP or USP compact with the new 7lb law enforcement DAO trigger, or a DAO Sig 228, etc. Basically, I think the military should have gone the way most US law enforcement agencies are going.

But the military specified a manual safety...

M1911
 
B is for Broken locking block (one chunk becomes two!)
E is for Extra large grip that doesn't fit a lot of hands
R is for Really uncomfortable to carry concealed
E is for Easy to break decocking lever and trigger spring
T is for Too big for a 9mm sized envelope
T is for Too small a caliber (especially w/ FMJ)
A is for Allies who don't use the M9 (Ever wonder why?)

I am issued one.
I shoot it a LOT. I mean virtually UNLIMITED ammo.
I have probably put more rounds out of Berettas than any other pistol I've shot over the last 26 years.
At the end of the day, when I wander over to my local gun emporium (which caters primarily to Army/Navy SOF and USMC), what do I see displayed for sale?
H&K, SIG, Glock, CZ...but no Berettas.
Can you say "informed consumer demand"? Sure...Sure you can.
 
Amen, to that Chindo.

Our military went to the .45 for specific reasons. Now, our politicians demand 9mm for political reasons. NATO, UN, let's be part of the wonderful one-world government reasons. After all, 9mm is adequate. And it's the preferred round of the new world order. Hogwash. I bet we can find a few vets who appreciated the difference between 9mm and 45ACP in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. But don't listen to them. They are just the soldiers who fought for this country. Their experience means nothing in this mass-destruction, nintendo world of war we live in today. I, on the other hand, happen to listen to their stories, and that is the reason I carry .45ACP. I hope we don't have to learn the lessons of the past with the blood of future Americans. A sidearm is vitally important if that is all you HAVE at the time. Our troops deserve the best. End of rant.
 
I'm the one who started this mess......

I said originally I think the military needs to train its soldiers, sailors, and Marines better with the handgun. I know its not going to happen, but I would love to see a sidearm issued to everyone, all the time. This society is why this won't happen. Thats the reason we have the Beretta, which I still love by the way, because of Italy and Aviano AB. Heck!...They wouldn't even give us live rounds in the National Guard when we were in Equador because there was an active unit of MPs that were supposed to "protect" us! COME ON!! Why the heck do we train on these dang weapons if they won't ever let us use them! This is just one of several reasons I got out of the Army, I couldn't take the BS anymore! The glory days of the US military are way past over! What I wouldn't give to have been in the military back during the WWII era. Those were days of respect....and better looking uniforms too!
I personally think that the Glock 17 should have been allowed to be tested like the others. We all know it would have won. Even if you don't like Glocks, you know that the others wouldn't have stood a chance if it was in the going. I love the M9, Sigs, 1911s and Glocks more than any other "combat" handguns out there. For the "masses" of todays joke of an Army the Glock is pretty idiot proof, but if I had my choice it would be the grand old .45!
 
Better question to ask is why is the small arm training so generally poor within the military? M9 or M11 or M1911, it doesn't matter what you're issued if you've had minimalist training and can't use it.

Darryl
 
i have a Beretta 92FS and like it very much. it is one of my favorite handguns. it is extreemly reliable and accurate. it holds more rounds than a 1911 which i think is important in combat and the difference between 9mm FMJ and .45 FMJ is basically nothing.

the M9/92FS is so big because it was designed that way. it isn't supposed to be carried concealed (the military has the M11 for that) it's designed as an open carry pistol for the military or LEOs. it has basically no recoil because of its big size and it points and feels good in my hands (and i have small hands!).
 
Wow, I must be the only person on the planet who's had a Glock that woudln't fire.

My buddy and I rented a Glock 19 at the range to compare against his SIG P226. The Glock fired three rounds fine, then when he squeezed the trigger the fourth time, nothing happened. No jams were apparent, and the slide appeared to be in full battery.

The rangemaster came over and checked it out, unloaded it (no mark on the primer so I guess the striker didn't release), reloaded it, and then squeezed off a few rounds. "Hmm, must be dirty." Okay, whatever. I fired two more rounds, then the same thing happened to me that happened to my friend (pull trigger, and no "bang"). Rangemaster came over and went through the same rigamarole.

We finished that mag, and were two rounds into the next one when the Glock refused to fire for the _third_ time. We unloaded it in disgust, and spent the rest of the session with the SIG.

I don't know what the problem was with that particular Glock, and since it's not intelligent to evaluate that model just from that one sample. Nonetheless, I'm no longer as impressed when people tell their ultra-reliable-Glock stories.
---

I'm not surprised to see so many Glock fans here, but... I _am_ surprised that so many people are recommending the "NY Trigger"! :barf:

Isn't the NY Trigger was an abomination created by lawyers, when NYC sued Glock because a lot of NYPD were too stupid to keep their finger off the trigger and were shooting themselves and others negiligently.

Sure, the safe-action trigger pull (7 lbs) is lighter than a DA revolver's 10 lbs. But the rest of the planet can handle it. Well, except for NYPD's "elite Street Crime Unit", that is:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/09/police.shooting

"Show me something idiot proof, and I'll show you a bunch of idiots using it!"
 
The are various reasons for the proficiency or lack of it with marksmanship in the military.

1) Good training cost money, for ammo, for facilities and people. Today's military is a make do with less military. It hard to believe, but other than special ops and a few boondoggles, the military has very little money. It is so bad in the FMF, that it is not unusual for half of the rolling stock to be deadlined. Combine that with a general short fall of people, so if your TO/E says 150 your lucky to have 80 and of those 80, some will be T2P2 and not be able to play. Some will be tasked out to various things going around on the base, or being sent to required schools, etc. So you end up with enough people in your Plts to combine into one Plt, so very hard to do Co/Btry level training without the people.

2) An increase in the recruiting pool whose only concept on employment of weapons come from Hollywood. I have seen people try to fire M9 "gangster style" on several occasions. When asked why, many say that is what they saw on "TV" and those guy could shoot really well. But they some realize TV and the real world are two different things.

3) Realistic training risk troops life. A commander will go down, if one of his troops is injured in training. No matter if was an accident. At 29 Palms last year a Marine was killed in a live fire, although the investigation showed no culpability on the part of the Btry, CO, after the CG rejected those findings, on the grounds that, "if we don't court martial this guy it will look like we are covering things up." The CO was court maritaled, although he was equitted he was ruined and spent every cent he had in savings and had to sell his home. Very chilling to ever other CO. Many of my friends look at it as "if we do real training and someone get hurt, no matter what, I'm going down. So it is better to do safe, unrealistic training." That is one of the ideas behind operation risk assessment, to ensure there is lower ranking officer on the blame line after an accident because of failure to safe guard troops.

4) Most killing will not occur because of small arms. The supporting weapon will be the major killers on the future battlefield. Many of these new systems, although costly to train with, can be simulated with computers, etc., saving money.

5) Pistols are not primary weapons, they are defensive weapons. Only a few people are issued them, and many of those billets are now replacing them with carbines because of the difficulty hitting targets with handguns (even highly trained personnel still have more difficulty hitting with a pistol as opposed to with a rifle) and the inability to penetrate body armor that is becoming common today


6) The M9 is very reliable, although I have seen and had a locking block failure on an issue weapon. The only thing that will stop them is bad magazines. This is a common problem I see thought in today's military. It seems very bad in the Army comapred to the Marines, in the "weapons pool" here I was amazed how many unserviceable magazines were issued out, of the 90 or so we used last week about 65 should have been surveyed for new ones. Because of these bad magazines the young Lts got a lot of immediate action on their weapons, but very little firing training.
 
There was no specification for a manual safety in the M9 trials. The SIG does not have one. There was a spec for DA that allowed a "second strike capability" the Glock could not meet, which was probably the biggest reason among a few they were not included/declined to participate.

I have put over 20,000 rounds through two different Berettas I have owned with no problems. A friend has replaced the barrel, locking block, frame, trigger bar and numerous pins/springs on his SIG 228 under 30,000 rounds. Ya never know?

What do most military shooters who know a thing or two own personally? 1911s, BHPs, CZs, Glocks, USPs, SIGs is what I see. Gotta be a reason so few go Beretta? Familiarity breeds contempt?
 
With my experience of working with and training Marines....

The Double Action ability and decocking safety are definitely a plus for our low level of training.

However, I have shot an inexpensive S&W DA/SA 9mm (5904) and a sig 228, and I own a kel-tec for ccw. IMHO, the Berreta has the worst DA trigger of them all, even the $270 kel-tec!! And the worst SA trigger of the three 9mm I've shot.

Politics, all politics....
 
There is a book, "A Rifleman Went to War,"

where the author told the effectiveness of 9mm. They were going into the Jerry trenches and one guy picked up a souvenir Luger, complete with belt and holster. Coming around a corner he was surprised by a straggling Jerry. With no time or space to maneuver, he swung the Luger by the pistol belt and bashed the Jerry's brains out. The author said that was the only time he had seen the 9mm do an effective job as a weapon. I was convinced by that testimony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top