Why the problems with millitary 92FS's

B

Blue Duck357

New member
This was touched on in another thread a couple of weeks back with not much response.

Anyone have any idea of why it seems that when people with millitary experience with the M-9 (92FS) post about it they often complain about reliability and durability issues. Yet when civilians and police post about essentially the same gun it gets rave reviews on both counts???
 
Blue Duck,
Don't know the answer. However, I'll throw some theories around.

The military usually doesn't have armorers that are as well trained as big police depts. Therefore, they may get better maintenance. Now before I get flamed: The military has some great armorers, but they are not at unit level and it's hard to get your stuff to them.

In the military weapons are often abused or not well maintained since it's not "yours". Most police or civies aren't going to abuse it since it is theirs.

The guy before you may have beat the thing to death. The weapon stays at the unit. The moron moves on.

Training at big depts may be much better. Handgun training in the military is not a major issue.

There may also be the contract issue. Beretta is probably always fighting for more contracts in the police market and they may be better about sending out training and maintenance teams.

Not sure if any of these are the real answer. Just some thoughts.
I usually think it's a training issue. Markmanship in the (Army) is often not a big deal.

My 2 cents.
 
For one thing, the Army uses the M-882 Ball round, which is WAY hotter than SAAMI spec commercial ammo. A steady diet of +P+ as hot as this will eventually take any pistol apart.
 
Gary, but doesn't all NATO and most European 9mm ammo in general run from +P to +P+? You would think an Italian company marketing a pistol for NATO troops would design with this taken into account.
 
POS's

I have to say that I think ohen cepel is completely wrong. The problem was that the things kept breaking. OVer and over again. You couldn't give me one of them. As for the personal that support them, the armorers I have yet to met a police armorer who had the depth of knowledge that one of the E5's and above have in the military.
When I was in the weapon you were issued was very well taken care of by me, becuase if I broke it, I bought it. That is something that civilivan police departments do not have to do. PLus in the military we fired a lot more rounds then civilivan police departments.
The fact is that a lot of them were POS's when the military recived them. Never, ever forget everything used in the military is made by the low bidder.
 
Gary,


Do you have any idea what the real problem is? The Sig P228 fires these cartridges too but I do not hear as much complains.

Could it be that Army personnel just never liked the choice of the Beretta as their issue sidearm and so nitpick?
 
Regarding the use and firing of the M9 in the Air Force:

My PD fires a minimum of 4 quals a year (at least 156 rounds total), plus 300-500 in in-service training. Thus a person using a Beretta pistol would fire between about 400 - 600 rounds per.

Category "A" personnel in the AF (if required to be armed with the M9) fire once per year, I think the course is 80 rounds. If they are lucky, they may get to fire twice per year. Cat "B" fire every 2, and Cat "C" fire every three if I remember correctly. USAF Special Operations personnel prob fire more, although PJ's are still Cat "A", and CCT's are (strangely) Cat "B". Some Security Forces troops get to shoot more if competing in Defender Challenge, Guardian Challenge, etc. None of this includes the folks on the actual shooting teams, they are a whole different story.

Based upon my 19 year and some odd months in the AF (active duty and reserve), I would say that many CATM personnel serving as armorers are knowledgeable, and some are not. Much like those on my PD and on others I have contact with (I am one of the armorers).

However, I don't think it is accurate to make such a sweeping statement that AF personnel shoot more than cops, or that AF armorers are any better.
 
Well your department is different

I shoot 4 times a year in the AF to qualify, plus was allowed to shoot more if so desired.
My bother is in a PDin a mjor city and he shoots once year, 100 rounds.
The arorers we had in my sqs. really knew their stuff. I have spoken to many PD armorers and they were good, but it was very hit or miss.
 
A few more suggestions:

1. A bit of abuse, combined with large numbers of rounds fired. I have a Marine friend who showed me how he cleaned his M16; after five minutes of watching him, I determined to never let him touch my rifle again. It qualified as abuse in my book.

2. Some of this is probably dating back to the early problems they had with the slide and locking block, since corrected. It may also be that the spare parts that are being put back into the pistols are of the older design.

3. Individual soldiers playing with them. I destroyed a trigger spring once because I decided to take it out and play with it, intending to "improve" the trigger. I failed, and managed to break a piece on the way. How many soldiers have messed with the innards on a Friday night, and then blamed the gun for mysteriously breaking?

4. Envy, and anger from the .45 Mafia. :)

My .02
 
if you get to shoot 4 times a year in the AF, you are truly lucky. CATM troops get proficiency ammo that gives them some leeway, others do not.

I'm quite surprised to hear you get to shoot that much......
 
I saw Army Aviation transition from the Colt & SW 38s to the Ruger Service Sixes to the M9. The problems stated by ohen cepel are pretty much right on target in my experience. I'm not sure what training our armorers had, but they were usually not at the range when we shot (which was usually once a year). The chain of command on most of the Aviation units I was in over my 20 years pretty much thought of pistol quals as a nuisance and just went through the motions. I saw the poor way M9s were treated as well....guys would wrap them in plastic "to keep them clean" :rolleyes: , and not take them out again until just prior to cleaning them for turn-in. Saw guys never take them out and clean them during the entire Bosnia deployment. The list goes on. OF course these are just the observations of a lowly retired Attack Helicopter Pilot...;)
 
Here’s some positive military experience:

Besides my regular Army job, I was my battalion’s pistol trainer in Europe for a couple of years. Because of that and as a Senior NCO I was OIC for most of the pistol ranges. Our M9’s were very accurate and reliable.

Never saw a failure caused by the M9; did see some caused by operator headspace. Got my range armorers from the maintenance company of a Forward Support Battalion. They were direct support personnel and very capable and qualified.

Although I was never tasked in other places as heavily as I was Europe, I still ran ranges from time to time until this year and still experienced a high reliablity rate with the M9.
 
Forgot to mention in my last post that I was impressed with reliability of well-maintained M9's...

Just like anything else, ya gotta treat it right...
 
I believe I was the first person to bring this up. In civilian service the Beretta is almost universally praised for its sterling reliability, yet in the military almost everybody seems to badmouth it as a temperamental piece of junk. The problem is separating the truth from fiction, as it seems a single reported malfunction in a pistol can snowball into an entire epidemic of bad pistols. For example, I have heard so many different stories as to exactly how many Berettas experienced the slide breakage failures that I don't know what to believe. One gun magazine says that no Beretta in civilian hands has ever broken, only military ones. Yet another gun rag reported that police Berettas have indeed broken. The first article says none of the 92fs models with the slide capture have ever broken, but the author of the second article says he personally saw a newer 92fs break as well! By the way, the first article sang the Beretta's praises while the second one lashed it. So it seems both authors were biased and probably stretched the truth as well.
 
I believe you were to DSK.

I waited a week or two to bring it up on it's own thread to avoid infringing on your intelectual property ;) It was such a good point but seemed to get glossed over a bit as people discussed other things. Hope you don't mind the bit of plagerism.
 
When my Infantry unit transitioned from the M1911 to M9 we didn't experience any more problems with the M9's than we had seen with the M1911's. Some of the problems were unique to the Beretta, like a broken trigger drawbar and a locking block that was damaged by a soldier, but nothing that would cause a lack of confidence in the M9's reliability.
 
This may be amazing to some folks here, but at my gun club we have several members who are WWII and Korean war vets (not the same guys) and their memories of the M-1 Garrand, and the 1911 are not as rosy as one might think.

It seems the M-1 garrand malfuntioned quite frequently in battle, one vet tells the story of an intense WWII battle right after D-day in which his gun jammed, and his buddies gun jammed and they had to take guns off of dead GIs to keep firing. Thats a Normandy Reload.

It also seems the army 1911 was considered to be junk by a few of those troops in those days, and some even preferred to carry revolvers. :rolleyes:

Weapons in Military service take quite a beating, and may be rebuilt several times.
 
I can't speak with direct knowledge about slides breaking, but a man who runs a gun store with a rental range once showed me a handful (6 months worth) of broken locking blocks from Beretta Model 92F's. All were from US made guns and all were from civilian guns. He now says that they have improved the block and breakage is about unknown today.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top