what pistols did the 1911 and beretta 92 compete against?

I love how the XM9 trial story changes and grows more plot twists and gotchas each time it is told. Muh NATO! Muh Geneva conventions!


At the end of the day, the average Joe doesn't like what is issued to him. What the other guy is issued or what could had been issued is always "better". And it is always best to complain about current issue, as we are all experts on what is best, and 45 ACP will blow a guys head clean off.


Most of the folks still breathing enough to type here, and were active when the 1911 was in service had about a 50% chance of being issued a revolver, so I think that part of the nostalgia for the M1911 is artificial. Most of the folks who would had been issued a M9, were not issued any handguns by the time it was in widespread use. The point here is that first hand user experiences are poorly understood and often limited to beat up pistols on qualification day. Once you replace the M9 with whatever Glock, S&W, Sig, etc wins the next competition, Everyone will look back longingly at the M9, and immediately set about complaining about the replacement gun.





I think the M9 is fine. I hope the US Military replaces it with a Glock in a caliber foreign to NATO.
 
Well I was in the service during the transition. I was also an armor crewman (tanks) and was issued a handgun as my main PDW.

My 1911 was a rattle trap which went bang, finish was mostly gone and it would be a cheap beater on the market today.

When we received our shipment of M9's the armorers had us take them straight from the box and clean them and then we turned them in for our new weapons card.

Ours were one of the early shipments of all Italian made guns, which were tight, new, and had really nice finishes.

Everyone's pistols scores rose going to the 9.

The M9 worked for me then but it would not be my choice now.
 
The M9 is an acceptable gun. It does what it is designed to do pretty well. That said, I dislike the safety design and locking block wear can be a real pain. I never understood why people think you should put the safety way up on the slide or that up should be fire. To me, a thumb safety should be easy to place on "fire" while assuming a firing grip (e.g. on the slide, and down being "fire").
The DoD could do worse, but it could also do better.

Pistol training has to be fairly intensive to really bring out the capability of the pistol. I don't think the "line" troops would get sufficient training to really make the most of any pistol they were issued. It is prohibitively expensive to train a hundred thousand or more people with several hundred rounds a week on a weapon that will generally be a back-up or issued to those who are not likely to use it in combat.

Some people in the DoD are never required to carry, and as such are unlikely to even qualify on a pistol. The only time I've fired a government owned M9 was for an EIC match.
 
Raimius, were you trained to actually use the safety while carrying the M9?


My understanding is that with slide mounted safeties on a traditional Double Action (DA/SA) gun, is that the safety is usually treated as an "administrative" safety for handling the gun. For example, a LEO securing the gun in the vault in a Police Station's Sally Port before moving the prisoner from the cruiser to the intake / booking cell.

When the gun is to be carried in it's holster, the safety stays "off" and the long, heavier Double Action first trigger pull serves as the "safety" and is as safe as a holstered DA revolver.


The issue with the M9 / 92FS is if you clear a malfunction, or perform an overhand slide release on a fresh mag, you may accidentally engage the safety and leave you exposed when you should be shooting. If this was a pure decocker, the worst that would happen is that you would go from your SA pull to your DA pull, but you wouldn't have a dead gun.


I cannot imagine any need to employ a manual safety on a de-cocked Traditional Double Action pistol carried in an acceptable holster, but I've seen it done. I won't comment on what I thought about their weapons familiarity or confidence.
 
In the XM10 trials the Army held the Tanfoglio TZ-75 (the Italian clone of the CZ75) was considered and tested initially in late 1987 early 1988. The decision to exempt the M9 from being re-tested in those trials was challenged by S&W and a hold was put on further testing, meanwhile the Italian TZ-75 fell by the wayside.

Shortly thereafter the CZ85 was tested and did well in the Aberdeen testing grounds. But as it had no decocker or firing pin safety block (at that time) it was not acceptable. It was also ipso-facto out of the running because it was manufactured behind the still existing "iron curtain".

tipoc
 
Having carried a MEUSOC 1911 for work I'm going to put out a few observations (I still am not an M9 fan BTW, and I'd take the MEUSOC over an M9 any day)

Whoever the gentleman was that was working in the armory at Quantico when they built my particular MEUSOC 1911 decided that blending the grip frame to meet the grip safety was not an efficient use of his time, so I had two large lumps of metal that would eat into my hand. A 6 week CWB package that typically included 4-600 rounds of pistol shooting a day left me soaking my bleeding right hand in ice water for extended periods of time. These pistols did not really work so well dirty, 300 rounds was about the max before we'd start to see failure to feed malfunctions and failure to go into battery. We swam some places to get to work. I'd have rather had a Glock on my thigh than the 1911 for those jobs. It was all sorts of accurate, as long as you did your part. I'd take it over an M9, but trade it for a Glock 19 in a heartbeat.
 
What? Can you cite where the Tangfolio was in the XM10 test?


This story is growing legs again. Maybe the next time it is told Glock will be there too, but Chuck Norris sabotaged it so we could have Rocky's match with Ivan Drago without angering the Austrians.
 
What? Can you cite where the Tangfolio was in the XM10 test?
Click to expand...

See "Modern Beretta Firearms" by Gene Gangarosa page 140. Like a few others it was there for a hot minute, but there.

tipoc
 
Just for fun what do YOU think should be the next military sidearm??[/QUOTE

The M9 is basically a BUG for the U.S. Military combat warfighter. Top priority should always be to provide the best combat long guns in the best possible condition for our troops. The M9 is marginalized by its backup role, and the fact that 9mm NATO ammo is the only authorized ammo choice. The British MoD evaluation of alternatives for the aging Browning Hi-Powers in their inventory resulted in the selection of the Gen4 Glock 17 as the best replacement. Is an M9 in top mechanical condition a better choice than the Glock, considering the fact that the U.S. Military will probably continue the use of 9mm NATO ammo? I say probably not. Is a brand new Gen4 Glock 17 a better alternative than an aged, worn M9? I say absolutely yes.

I can't see the point of spending billions of taxpayer $ for another service pistol trials, when we can study the results of the British Ministry of Defense trials from three years ago and then make the determination that we are replacing the aged & worn out M9's with the Glocks on a gradual basis. I know there are political implications with U.S. manufacturers on the next military service pistols, but I would argue that the results of the British MoD from their recent pistol trials, is sufficient to justify the same choice for the U.S. Military, saving the expense of another pistol trials.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The TZ was briefly "tested" before the "official" XM-10 tests began.

This "test" was actually more of a have fun at the range at taxpayers expense. That test was ended almost before it began.

The official test did not have the TZ as I recall, I think the TZ was a SAO pistol at that time and would not have qualified under the Army's requirements.

Now I could be wrong on that, maybe they had a sa/DA gun at that time.

The CZ85 was DA/SA and did compete.

Gangarosa's book was a good read and is pretty thorough on the 9mm tests.
 
Last edited:
Raimius, were you trained to actually use the safety while carrying the M9?
Click to expand...

While I can't speak for Raimius

Both in the USMC and the USCG we were trained to load the weapon, de-cock the hammer, flip safety off and holster. A de-cocker only like on the 92 G models would have been the more practical choice.

So the safety was off in either my tanker shoulder holster or my belt mounted holster.

In the field the safety was not used. At the range they would occasionally ask us to flip the switch to safe if we couldn't put the weapon down on a stand.
 
So we should adopt the Glock 17 to replace the Beretta because it outperformed a HighPower? What other guns did the Brits test?
 
Guv, my understanding is the MOD tested the P226 as well.

The MOD didn't adopt G17 to replace the FN P35 because it shot better. They bought it because the P35's were ancient, worn out, and modern, stronger, replacement was needed.
 
I figured that, like our old 1911's. Wow a G17 over a Sig 226, price had to be a factor with this?
 
Here is an article that described the British Ministry of Defense trials and selection of the Gen4 Glock 17;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...pistol-as-glock-bests-browning-after-46-years

As the article states..."Britain selected the Glock 17 ahead of the P30 and P226 from German manufacturer Heckler & Koch GmbH and Sig Sauer, even after the latter model was used on an emergency basis in Afghanistan. The Austrian gun also beat out the M&P9 from Springfield, Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. and the PX4 Storm made by Brescia, Italy-based Berretta Holding."
 
Last edited:
Wow a G17 over a Sig 226, price had to be a factor with this?
Click to expand...
I would say price was a big factor. Hopefully the took more care choosing it than they did with their service rifle the SA/80 probably one of the worst rifles put into service.
 
Last edited:
“Glock was the clear winner,” said Warrant Officer Mark Anderson, a Royal Marine and the project’s requirements officer. “Within two seconds you can put five rounds on a target.”


I like this quote better.
 
Glock was the clear winner,” said Warrant Officer Mark Anderson, a Royal Marine and the project’s requirements officer. “Within two seconds you can put five rounds on a target.”
Click to expand...
I would like to see a soldier that had minimal handgun training drawing a Glock and putting five rounds on target in two seconds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top