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
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