29 replies [Last post]
WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
US Beretta M9

The next time you guys hear some wanabe saying (wishing) that the US military will be adopting a cool new .45 ACP 1911 type pistol for service soon. Tell them that Beretta just was awarded a new contract for 450,000 new M9 pistols to the DoD. Orders to be filled over the next 5 years. That's 247 pistols produced each day at the factory to fill this order. This according to the 2009 SHOT show reports and Beretta's website.

ADKBEAR's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Central NY
Joined: 09/16/2003
Posts: 823
US Beretta M9

I just read about this in the new American Rifleman. Not that Beretta dosent make a quality handgun.

Offline
Location: Misouri
Joined: 11/30/2005
Posts: 365
US Beretta M9

wonderful

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
US Beretta M9

New??
1911??
That's like saying a cool new Colt model P.

Just sayin

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
US Beretta M9
BunnySlayer wrote:
New??
1911??
That's like saying a cool new Colt model P.

Just sayin

You know what I mean. I hear it all the time from guys, especially those new to handgun shooting. There are so many rumors floating around about the US Military adopting a new service pistol. They all claim that it will be a tricked-out Kimber 1911 or some such. What they don't realize is that the military is always testing new firearms and just because they run a test on some Kimbers or Wilson Combats that doesn't mean they are planning on adopting it.

Another thing that's not that well know is that the US Army had learned enough about German weapons in WWII that since the end of that war they had been wanting to adopt a new double action service pistol in 9mm. Lots of tests were conducted with the new (at the time) Smith & Wesson 9mm pistols and even some single action guns like the Browning P-35s all throughout the 1950's and 60's. But, you know how the government is, they come up with an idea and it take half a century to impliment it. Could have also been a matter of economic. At the time we still had thousands of good 1911's in service that had served our military very well and maybe they just wanted for them to wear-out before replacing them.

From the news of that new contract, it's pretty appearant that the Beretta M9 will be in service for many years to come.

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
US Beretta M9

Just pulling your leg Wh! I have nothing against the beretta except that it's in 9mm. I own several 9mm's and like it, but it's not my first choice for the military given that they are mandated by the Geneva convention to use ball ammo. Not that effective a fight stopper by anyones stats. I have one pal that has been to Iraq once and one that has been twice (confusing I know) and both stated that they would have been happier with .45's. I'm sure the reason we're keeping the Beretta is cost effectiveness, not performance. We already have the parts, training, ammo etc.

Offline
Location: Misouri
Joined: 11/30/2005
Posts: 365
US Beretta M9
BunnySlayer wrote:
. I own several 9mm's and like it, but it's not my first choice for the military given that they are mandated by the Geneva convention to use ball ammo.

This is a common misconception. It was actually the Hauge Convention and the US never signed it. They do honnar it tho which suprizes me cause the last several wars the enemys could give a hoot about the Hauge Convention or Geneva convention for that matter.

Not much on Beretta M-9 but there doing alright I guess. Belive after market magazines were the big issue (and 9mm ball ammo).

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
US Beretta M9

I stand corrected.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
US Beretta M9
BunnySlayer wrote:
Just pulling your leg Wh! I have nothing against the beretta except that it's in 9mm. I own several 9mm's and like it, but it's not my first choice for the military given that they are mandated by the Geneva convention to use ball ammo. Not that effective a fight stopper by anyones stats. I have one pal that has been to Iraq once and one that has been twice (confusing I know) and both stated that they would have been happier with .45's. I'm sure the reason we're keeping the Beretta is cost effectiveness, not performance. We already have the parts, training, ammo etc.

On the battlefield you want maximum penetration for your rounds to be effective. If I were on the battlefield I'd rather have a 9mm sidearm. I've shot a lot of both 9x19mm and .45 ACP over several years and sometimes at a lot of junk. I'm talking tens of thouands of rounds. I can tell you from those experiences that there are many things a 9mm will penetrate through at 25 yards that a .45 ACP will only dent. I'm talking ball ammo in both calibers. Either way I'd be happy with either caliber in a sidearm. A sidearm is just a sidearm, intended for close-up personal protection, not as a primary weapon. Keep in mind that the 9x19mm has likely been uses the most of any pistol caliber on the battlefield for over 100 years. Others countries around the world don't seem to have a problem with it, and many of them engage in more armed conflicts and battles than we do. I suppose if it were as lacking as you hear about, then I'm sure all those armies and countries would have adopted .45 ACP a long time ago. A lot of bad stuff going around about 9mm is just myth and personal opinion, really. If you really grill and press someone on why they shun the 9mm you'll find that they really don't know why, everything they think about it is just from what they have read or been told with no real experience of it's effectiveness. I know a few cops and they have told me some stories over the years of people (both victims and criminals) who have been shot with 230 grain .45 ACP center mast, through the lungs and heart and still managed to either run away and escape or turn on the shooter. I hear the same stuff with a lot of pistol calibers. Kind of makes you wonder and want to question a lot of garbage they print in Gun & Ammo about man-stopper calibers.

As far as the M9 goes. I think it's a pretty darn good quality pistol. I've fired thouands of round through one and never had a hiccup with it. My problem with it is it's size. It way to large a pistol for a modern 9mm handgun. I also hate double action tiggers, just my complaint

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
US Beretta M9

As to the penetration issue WH neither 9mm ball nor 45 ball will penetrate body armor. If penetration is needed any handgun will come up short. High powered rifles are primary weapons for a reason. I too have fired many tens of thousands of rounds in law enforcement qualifications, training, competition, hunting and recreationaly. I have carried for many years. There is nothing essentialy wrong with the Beretta except that it's large, unwieldy and has a horrible trigger. Other than that it's a marvelous gun. If I must leave my shotgun or patrol rifle behind I will (and do) take a .45 or even a .40 over a 9 any day. It's not that I feel under-armed with a 9 as I know where I can put em if I have to, it's just that I like the extra knock down power and the shootability of a 1911. I've known and spoken with many gunfight vets both overseas and in urban america. Not one survivor of these gunfights said he ever wished for a smaller gun in a gunfight. I repect your decision and opinion, but you can keep the Beretta.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
US Beretta M9

True about handguns and body armor, except for maybe a .22 magnum. But you do have to keep in mind that not every adversary on the battlefield is wearing body armor. Sure soldiers from more developed coutries will be wearing armor usually, but think of all the freedom fighters and insurgents we now engage with. Of course it's just a matter of time before they adoped that stuff.

I too have had a good many conversation with a few folks who survived gun fights too, both cops and old soldiers. Those willing to talk about it seem to have various results with various calibers of handgun. Old US vets from previous wars were pleased with the 1911. I've talked to two old German vets who were frontline whermacht officers in WWII, one of which was a neighbor of mine when I was growning up, and both seemed to be perfectly pleased with the abilities of the 9mm Walthers and Brownings. From what I've heard, the underlying sentiment is that all survivors were just glad to have gotten an accurate killing shot first and were just glad to have had a personal protection weapon.

I do love 1911s and the .45 ACP and own a few of them. But in 9mm I actually I'd prefere a Browning Hi-Power MkIII over a Beretta M9 for sure. Thumbs up

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
FS: BERETTA PX4 40 S-W 14 Rd. Magazine by Webyshops.comWebyGeek007/06/2012 12:49 pm
rem 1187 or Beretta 390df0rster011/17/2006 14:29 pm
Rich Hunterscob6001/02/2003 15:40 pm
.40 Cal preferencejeeptx411/13/2009 11:17 am
A question about the Beretta 92 SeriesSniper9102/28/2005 12:39 pm