Why My Personal Beretta M9s and 92s Work But Your Military Issued One Didn't

M

Mrgunsngear

New member
ic2EH2El.jpg


2yAChQfl.jpg


One thing anyone who has been issued a M9 in the military and purchased one personally knows is that they don't seem like the same weapon. Sure the controls are the same but the feel, and often the performance, of the gun can be very different. I get a lot of questions related to this as I have quite a few different Beretta pistol reviews up so I wanted to explain why I believe this is.

1. Lack or parts replacement (generally the recoil spring but other parts as well).
2. Bad magazines. Particularly the parked Checkmate 15 rounder.
For some reason, there seems to also be a lack of destroying bad M9 mags as opposed to bad M4/16 mags which are regularly destroyed
3. Individual maintenance and training is often poor or non-existent. How often have you seen "cup and saucer" grips used by military members in photos...?
4. There are hundreds of thousands of highly worn M9s in the military. Over the decades they've just worn due to extended use.

A quick discussion of all the details on the points above:


Beretta M9/92 Reliability Overview
 
Excellent advice!! A+!!

Your advice on replacing springs mirrors my experience. Just last week I gave advice on rimfire central on the importance of replacing the recoil spring in S&W M41's.

Replace that Recoil Spring!!!
Click to expand...

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=643665

I helped a fellow Bullseye shooter get his M41 operational by loaning him an old recoil spring. His pistol was not going fully into battery, which mirrors exactly what the video says about slide timing. Springs need to be replaced in all areas on all autopistols, just when, I don't have a maintenance schedule, but I think, if you are shooting in competition, at least once per year.

As for the reasons why the Army did not use Checkmate's advice on a proper magazine finish, instead staying with an old rough, but traditional finish, I think the best answer for this is a combination of lethargy and incompetence. The Army Ordnance Corp is doing all it can to reduce its work load and only if the problem is Volcano eruption, or end of human existence (theirs) level, and their boss's boss's boss starts making loud noises, will these lazy and incompetent bureaucrats crack a butt cheek to fix a known problem. Add in the fact that the Army Ordnance Department has lost its technical competency, so they don't understand the problem, it takes a long time to get meaning changes into the system.
 
I am a DACP (Dept. of the Army Civilian Police) Police Officer and we are issued the M9. I am also one of our department's armorers and while most agencies that issue the M9 really don't care that much about their maintenance and upkeep we certainly do. I have my own Beretta 92F and it functions flawlessly, the same as my issued M9. When our weapons are inspected and gauged each year the inspectors have stated they wished other groups took as much care of their pistols as we do. Most of the problems with the Beretta 92 series can be traced back to poor maintenance procedures. Other than a short reach trigger, a D model hammer spring, and the large head hammer pin my personal Beretta is the same as my issued M9.
 
Poor maintenance (or none) has always been a problem - in every army. I found this out the hard way, years ago when I served (U.S. Army/ divisional field artillery) The fact is, a certain proportion of the people in the service are simply useless. They don't care, about their jobs, about defending the country, about their duty, about anything (except perhaps themselves). Such people can't be depended on even to follow the simplest orders. As it pertains to small arms maintenance, let alone crew-served weapons systems, you have to watch these idiots every minute, or nothing will ever get done.

A very harsh critique of (some of) my fellow soldiers, but there it is. So, it is no wonder that many current weapons (and other systems) suffer excessive wear and tear and accelerated rates of failure.

This is NOT to say that everyone with which I served was a problem. By NO means - I served with some very fine people. Unfortunately, however, there was a small percentage which fit into the LCD mold and could not be relied upon.

Things were probably easier in the old days, when weapons (and other systems) were much less complex and when the serving personnel were a more homogeneous group. Easier, but not perfect. Slackers have always existed.....and always will. So thus will the problems that are the subject of this thread. The more complex things become, the more they depend on small details for proper, reliable operation.
 
I have many years of experience working FAR and DFAR procurements and contracts with the U.S. military and U.S. government agencies, and if you take a look at the evaluation criteria contained within the 351 pages of the XM17 Modular Handgun System solicitation, you will be convinced that the Army's Contracting Command at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, has not the slightest clue of what it is supposed to be buying! This specification does not even indicate which caliber handgun the bidder is supposed to propose, so how can you say that the ballistic performance parameters of the proposed firearm is left up to the discretion of the bidders? How do you evaluate one party's .357 Sig design against another party's .38 Super design? These guns will all perform differently during field evaluations!

Under this scenario, any evaluation selecting one bidder's design over the other bidder's designs will be contested by the unsuccessful bidders (and their legislators), and I'm predicting that the whole bid will be thrown out, and they will have to start over with new design and performance criteria. In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for a an M9 replacement, you will turn blue & pass out!
 
To clarify your points as to the acquisition. It is in no way the fault of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Defense FAR (DFARS) and or the Army (AFARS). If their is a fault(s) with the acquisition, then it will be the requiring activities Statement of Work, Specifications, and the Source Selection Plan.

You are primarily discussing those documents. I doubt you or few others are privy to the Source Selection Plan, but it had best be in line with the requirements as in the documents mentioned above. I understand what you are saying, and you are not incorrect. I just hope you are wrong about the Request for Proposal (RFP) soundness to stand up to Protest at the General Accounting Office.

We all want in this case for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and the Marines to get the best possible equipment and to the tax payer at the best possible life cycle cost.

I have been out of the business for a lot of years but hope all of the above is still the case.
 
One thing anyone who has been issued a M9 in the military and purchased one personally knows is that they don't seem like the same weapon. Sure the controls are the same but the feel, and often the performance, of the gun can be very different. I get a lot of questions related to this as I have quite a few different Beretta pistol reviews up so I wanted to explain why I believe this is.

1. Lack or parts replacement (generally the recoil spring but other parts as well).
2. Bad magazines. Particularly the parked Checkmate 15 rounder.
For some reason, there seems to also be a lack of destroying bad M9 mags as opposed to bad M4/16 mags which are regularly destroyed
3. Individual maintenance and training is often poor or non-existent. How often have you seen "cup and saucer" grips used by military members in photos...?
4. There are hundreds of thousands of highly worn M9s in the military. Over the decades they've just worn due to extended use.

A quick discussion of all the details on the points above:
Click to expand...


I never found the issued M9 to have many problems at all...even with the Checkmate mags. Now this was on firing ranges but still...I just didn't see it. As for cup and saucer, I never saw that either...

Are you coming from a Army, Navy, USAF or USMC reference?
 
Last edited:
Great Vid

Thanks mrgunsandgear! Good info as usual. My cousin that was in the Navy always gives me carp for carrying my 92a1, but I love this gun. Accurate, reliable, and good looking to boot. He recommends H&K and Sig pistols, but last I checked, didn't even carry a pocket knife, lol.
 
That must be an interesting production line where good pistols are selected for sale on the commercial market while junk parts and junk pistols are deliberately chosen for delivery to the company's largest customer, the U.S. military. And that is all due to total corruption in the procurement process where military and civilian personnel all take huge bribes to accept unusable junk guns that are intended to fail so enemies of the U.S. can kill American troops. Quite a scandal, indeed.

Or a lot of BS?

Jim
 
The military guns are the same as the commercial M9s. Most vets that bad mouth the pistols never even fired them while in the service and are only going on hearsay. The main culprits are poor contract magazines and weak worn out recoil springs. These same culprits that plague the M9 now are the same ones that plagued the 1911A1s in the '60s thru the '80s. This is why we still get the occasional post about poor 1911 reliability hearsay. Most unit level armorers don't give much preventative maintenance to the pistols.
 
My 92FS was 100% reliable, with both the factory mags, and even the extra round junker Promag mags that give some other guns fits. The Checkmate mags were the only ones that had any issues. I got three of them with my gun when I bought it, along with 3 factory mags, and 2 Promag. Of the three Checkmate mags, mag "A" was 100%, "B" was about 90%, and "C" was almost a one shot and it hung up certainty. I quickly tossed "C" into the junk drawer after cleaning and tweaking, and a little tweaking got "B" working 100%. Funny thing is, my Kel-Tec SUB2000 likes "C" just fine, and gobbles round after round from it. My friend's 92FS has zero issues with it too.
 
I really think the military should go with the M9A3 from Beretta, but looks like it got dropped from the new pistol competition.

All the mags, holsters, parts in inventory that the taxpayers wouldn't have had to pay for... sad.
 
1. Lack or parts replacement (generally the recoil spring but other parts as well).
2. Bad magazines. Particularly the parked Checkmate 15 rounder.
For some reason, there seems to also be a lack of destroying bad M9 mags as opposed to bad M4/16 mags which are regularly destroyed
3. Individual maintenance and training is often poor or non-existent. How often have you seen "cup and saucer" grips used by military members in photos...?
4. There are hundreds of thousands of highly worn M9s in the military. Over the decades they've just worn due to extended use.
Click to expand...

1. Parts wear out if you use your gun, recoil spring, trigger return spring and locking block are the only parts I have ever replaced on a 92xx.

2. Mags are expendable. Buy quality and proper maintenance.

3. If you use it, maintain it.

4. Yup, just like 1911's

20160316_131837_zps61x3wyfs.jpg
 
The most useless people in the Army are usually senior NCOs and officers. I served in the Army 1967-1971, was issued the M1911A1 TWICE, received ZERO training on it and NEVER went to the range. Was also issued the M79, had ZERO training in that, NEVER fired it. I knew only one NCO who was a gun guy. the attitude of most others to small arms was one of indifference.
 
The most useless people in the Army are usually senior NCOs and officers. I served in the Army 1967-1971, was issued the M1911A1 TWICE, received ZERO training on it and NEVER went to the range. Was also issued the M79, had ZERO training in that, NEVER fired it. I knew only one NCO who was a gun guy. the attitude of most others to small arms was one of indifference.
Click to expand...

The Army Times for March has an interesting acknowledgment that the Troops can't shoot straight. At least some within the Army are recognizing that a marksmanship problem exists, how long this push to improve shooting abilities will last, who knows?

Army tackles marksmanship shortfalls with new training course

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...ship-shortfalls-new-training-course/81545606/


Myth vs. reality: Army pros dispel common marksmanship misconceptions

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...-common-marksmanship-misconceptions/81544236/
 
" The most useless people in the Army are usually senior NCOs and officers."


Heck of a broad generalization, that is.


As a former "useless" senior NCO, howitzer crew leader and (later) first sergeant in an artillery battery, in an attached divisional artillery regiment, I can only state that we trained HARD. I worked my people to the point that they knew their jobs backwards and forwards, as well as the job of everyone else around them. And so did I. That includes training with small arms, which we, admittedly, did not get as much of as say, an infantry unit. Simply put, we held our people to the highest standards, or transferred them out.

Useless NCO's ? Sure, there are some. Useless officers ? Yes, there are many. Useless privates ? LOTS. Complacency exists in all the ranks. However, I don't think 4 years experience gives anyone the breadth of knowledge to be able to generalize about "mostly" or "usually" anything.

You know the old saying....."opinions are like (bleep)holes, everybody got one". That doesn't make those opinions count where it matters, though.
 
I had never even fired a Beretta, and lucked into one with 6 magazines for $300 a few weeks ago. Just from being a lowly glock armorer for my agency the first thing I did was replace the recoil spring. $6 can save a lot of future headaches.

Edit to add: My Beretta 92fs is made in Italy and has a metal guide rod. Are these two things positive or irrelevant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top