A soldiers thoughts on the M9
- Thread starter Walking Dead
- Start date
- Status
personally I hate the 9MM round itself but love the M9 I have shot the Berretta 92FS as a civilian and liked it. I carry a M9 more now than any other weapon usually as a primary unless I am on crew served weapons or a security watch. I do a lot of training with our security watch standers and VBSS personnel and have seen just about every type of shooter qualify with them. And in the 3 years I have been in I have not seen a single part break on the M9 and most of the malfunctions have been shooter/magazine induced errors.
GM3
GM3
GM,
If you had a choice other than fmj would you feel different about carrying the M9 or if it was in .40 cal? I know you don't and its all just hypothetical but I'm curious. I like the beretta but I'm just not crazy about the 9 mm.
If you had a choice other than fmj would you feel different about carrying the M9 or if it was in .40 cal? I know you don't and its all just hypothetical but I'm curious. I like the beretta but I'm just not crazy about the 9 mm.
mljdeckard
Member
Why not? It's been hours.
When I was an assistant armorer in 1993, we turned in our 87 1911A1s and replaced them with new-in-grease M-9s. I loved it, because they were new and pretty and space-agey. I qualified twice with mine, 40/40.
However, it was the first service pistol I every used. When I used others, I decided that other models were a lot more modern in their operation, and fit more hands a lot better. (And others that were older, I was able to shoot a lot better.) When I recently deployed, I had to train some female soldiers who had never shot a handgun before, and some of them couldn't even reach the safety because their hands were too small. The one I was issued was in terrible condition. (That is the army's fault, not Beretta's.) I just think that if we are stuck with 9mm NATO for the time being, (which we are,) I would rather train new shooters with a simpler, more rugged gun. I would choose Glock 17/19s. For myself, if I were allowed to choose any gun to carry, this one isn't even on the list. (The top is my Para SF-45A.)
When I was an assistant armorer in 1993, we turned in our 87 1911A1s and replaced them with new-in-grease M-9s. I loved it, because they were new and pretty and space-agey. I qualified twice with mine, 40/40.
However, it was the first service pistol I every used. When I used others, I decided that other models were a lot more modern in their operation, and fit more hands a lot better. (And others that were older, I was able to shoot a lot better.) When I recently deployed, I had to train some female soldiers who had never shot a handgun before, and some of them couldn't even reach the safety because their hands were too small. The one I was issued was in terrible condition. (That is the army's fault, not Beretta's.) I just think that if we are stuck with 9mm NATO for the time being, (which we are,) I would rather train new shooters with a simpler, more rugged gun. I would choose Glock 17/19s. For myself, if I were allowed to choose any gun to carry, this one isn't even on the list. (The top is my Para SF-45A.)
Bobson
Member
I hated it. Every M9 I ever used was prone to FTFs and FTEs. From what I've been told, that sort of experience with the M9 is incredibly rare; but that doesn't change my experience.
I was an armorer in Germany. Tank Bn. Lots of 1911A1's that I learned to hate & despise. I still do. The GD things were worn out and couldn't hit the wall at 10 paces. The only things worse were the M3/M3A1 submachine guns we had. I never once saw a full magazine get emptied without at least two jams.
The M9 was a god send. Better weapon all the way across the board & a better _military_ chambering. People could hit what they were shooting at and it was easier to maintain.
The M9 was a god send. Better weapon all the way across the board & a better _military_ chambering. People could hit what they were shooting at and it was easier to maintain.
Mine was always reliable and accurate but I don't like them. They are too large in the grip for my taste and the physical limits of some people. I'd much prefer carrying my BHP over it any day. My belief however is that no polymer pistol could handle what line troops put their M9s through. A thinner grip framed M9 would be fine with me if we are forced to stick with DA/SA. As a side note, I trained every one of my soldiers to cock the hammer on draw and avoid the 6" 30lb DA trigger pull. Makes initial shots faster and more accurate when it counts (generally close range viscious dogs).
The Beretta 92FS was my first gun (and handgun of course). I owned it for about 10 years.
In the Army, I was issued an M9 and carried on several deployments as a sidearm to my issued M4. I've qualified expert with it and shot competitively side by side, with Special Forces soldiers on ranges in Iraq with the M9.
Of the many handgun designs out there, the M9 would NOT be in my list of prefered guns for combat or self defense, due to the design and caliber.
The M9 is too large, heavy and bulky for a 9mm pistol. I've had some reliability problems with the platform.
There are better platforms (Glock, XD, Sig Sauer, HK, M&P) and better calibers (not to start a caliber war...) for serious self defense and combat.
Just to focus on the platform, it does nothing that smaller and equally or more reliable pistols can do. By comparison, CZ Phantom is about the same size and has like 20 round magazine vs. the 15 round mag of the M9. Or a CZ75 is about 15% smaller and lighter (a guess) than the M9, and the magazine holds 16 rounds. And of course polymer guns are much lighter.
You might think that 5 oz. is not a big difference but in the military (or anyone who carries a lot of gear) ounces quickly add up to pounds and extra weight is murder when you're carrying 40-50-60+ lbs over a distance.
In the Army, I was issued an M9 and carried on several deployments as a sidearm to my issued M4. I've qualified expert with it and shot competitively side by side, with Special Forces soldiers on ranges in Iraq with the M9.
Of the many handgun designs out there, the M9 would NOT be in my list of prefered guns for combat or self defense, due to the design and caliber.
The M9 is too large, heavy and bulky for a 9mm pistol. I've had some reliability problems with the platform.
There are better platforms (Glock, XD, Sig Sauer, HK, M&P) and better calibers (not to start a caliber war...) for serious self defense and combat.
Just to focus on the platform, it does nothing that smaller and equally or more reliable pistols can do. By comparison, CZ Phantom is about the same size and has like 20 round magazine vs. the 15 round mag of the M9. Or a CZ75 is about 15% smaller and lighter (a guess) than the M9, and the magazine holds 16 rounds. And of course polymer guns are much lighter.
You might think that 5 oz. is not a big difference but in the military (or anyone who carries a lot of gear) ounces quickly add up to pounds and extra weight is murder when you're carrying 40-50-60+ lbs over a distance.
mljdeckard
Member
lewis,
We had bad ones too. I was the asst in an HHC of an armor Bn, the armorer showed me his, the 1SG's, and the Cdr's guns. He had detail stripped them and put in new triggers, barrels, links, and bushings, and they shot like new. I asked him why we didn't do that for all of them, he said......because we were about to turn them in anyway, and they would never be shot again, so why bother? It's a lot easier to rejuvenate a 1911 than an M-9. Between the end of WWII and the switch, we didn't buy new 1911s, we just kept refurbing the ones we had.
We had bad ones too. I was the asst in an HHC of an armor Bn, the armorer showed me his, the 1SG's, and the Cdr's guns. He had detail stripped them and put in new triggers, barrels, links, and bushings, and they shot like new. I asked him why we didn't do that for all of them, he said......because we were about to turn them in anyway, and they would never be shot again, so why bother? It's a lot easier to rejuvenate a 1911 than an M-9. Between the end of WWII and the switch, we didn't buy new 1911s, we just kept refurbing the ones we had.
It works, it's easy to shoot, it's accurate enough (I got 40 out of 40 and used my spare rounds to make sure other medics passed)
FOR ME
Other medics in my unit wouldn't hit the broad side of the barn from inside.
I never carried on in combat, my primary arm was the M4, and to this day, I think pistols are fine, but a carbine is great for many applications.
But see this is combat, and real life is something COMPLETELY different.
FOR ME
Other medics in my unit wouldn't hit the broad side of the barn from inside.
I never carried on in combat, my primary arm was the M4, and to this day, I think pistols are fine, but a carbine is great for many applications.
But see this is combat, and real life is something COMPLETELY different.
Dependable and accurate. I shot a perfect score when I qualified before this MOB, and used a couple of my extra rounds to down a few targets for the fat O3 in the lane next to me.
I also carried a M9 in my last civilian job, guarding a military base.
As others have said, a smaller grip would make it easier for many shooters.
John
I also carried a M9 in my last civilian job, guarding a military base.
As others have said, a smaller grip would make it easier for many shooters.
John
The M9s always shot okay for me, but there are better things out there.
First, the FMJ 9mm needs to go. 9MM is fine, my duty gun at work is a nine, but I carry better ammo.
Second, the grip is way too big. I'm 5'10/195lbs. Not exactly a small guy, but I think the grip was made for somebody way bigger than me.
Third, the safety needs to go away. The 92G would be better. If you have to perform an immediate action drill, you can activate the safety when racking the slide. With the 92G, all you would do is activate a decocker, resulting in a heavier pull. You wouldn't actiivate the safety inadvertently.
First, the FMJ 9mm needs to go. 9MM is fine, my duty gun at work is a nine, but I carry better ammo.
Second, the grip is way too big. I'm 5'10/195lbs. Not exactly a small guy, but I think the grip was made for somebody way bigger than me.
Third, the safety needs to go away. The 92G would be better. If you have to perform an immediate action drill, you can activate the safety when racking the slide. With the 92G, all you would do is activate a decocker, resulting in a heavier pull. You wouldn't actiivate the safety inadvertently.
mljdeckard
Member
I found that as well, I actually had enough downtime to practice malfunction clearing, I started using the divot cuts at the front of the slide to tug and stayed away from the safety completely.
My old man carried a Sig (228) in Bosnia, and an M9 in Iraq. He never said anything bad about the M9, he can shoot expert with one if he needs to, but it says something to me that when he comes home he carries nothing but Sigs (P239 and P220). Doesn't even glance at Berettas when he walks into a gunshop. Neither of us likes that safety/decocker cluttering up the slide or the grip.
The M9 is a good service pistol, but not the best IMHO. I'd rather have a Sig or an M&P or XD, heck I'd even prefer a Glock.
The M9 is a good service pistol, but not the best IMHO. I'd rather have a Sig or an M&P or XD, heck I'd even prefer a Glock.
Last edited:
My thoughts on the M9 (dislike for 9mm ball ammo aside):
Cons: The frame of the pistol is too big. I have big hands, so it isn't a problem for me, but it's too big for a lot of soldiers.
The safety/decocker is terrible. As somebody already mentioned, the safety is easily engaged during malfunction clearance. The 92G's decocker would be an improvement. This is the only aspect of the M9 that makes me actively want a different service pistol. I would prefer something with no manual safety, but Uncle Sam would never go for it. A frame mounted safety would fix the problem.
Pros: The M9 is accurate and reliable. The single action trigger pull is pretty good. The open top slide seems to help with reliability, but there are plenty of reliable pistols that don't have one.
Overall, the M9 has some favorable qualities, but I don't like it largely due to matters of personal preference.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
Cons: The frame of the pistol is too big. I have big hands, so it isn't a problem for me, but it's too big for a lot of soldiers.
The safety/decocker is terrible. As somebody already mentioned, the safety is easily engaged during malfunction clearance. The 92G's decocker would be an improvement. This is the only aspect of the M9 that makes me actively want a different service pistol. I would prefer something with no manual safety, but Uncle Sam would never go for it. A frame mounted safety would fix the problem.
Pros: The M9 is accurate and reliable. The single action trigger pull is pretty good. The open top slide seems to help with reliability, but there are plenty of reliable pistols that don't have one.
Overall, the M9 has some favorable qualities, but I don't like it largely due to matters of personal preference.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
If I had to replace the M9 today, I would replace it with another M9. The ONLY change I would make is dovetailed front sight.
(After 16 years of service using this pistol)
(After 16 years of service using this pistol)
Never was in the military but have shot a bit. Anyway, my buddy and I, years ago, went squirrel hunting with our handguns. He had an M9 and I had a Hi-Power. He never got one shot off because the critter was already dead.. he was pretty much always in the process of cocking his piece while I shot. Killed around ten that day. He wasn't terribly happy but that's the way it goes sometimes.
Other than being a big and slow gun, it seems OK though.
Other than being a big and slow gun, it seems OK though.
It's a good pistol, but not universally sized (or sizeable) and at this point, a little antiquated; I can get more rounds in a lighter package that's easier to shoot well and better fits the variety of hand sizes in the military. I'll say up front that I never shot anyone with one, but did observe multiple folks cease their actions due to being hit by 9mm.
Since it was my last line of defense, I bought a 92FS and got good with it, even if it was never my favorite pistol. I didn't like the 2 trigger pulls, hated the DA especially. My thumb couldn't reliably reach the safety, so I would carry safety off, half cocked. The purpose of half-cocking after decocking was to get the trigger into that much more reachable a position, and it stiffened up the safety mechanism so that it was less likely to be activated unintentionally.
Of the 3 I was issued downrange, only 1 was unreliable, and that was due to magazines. Ironically enough, I blame the AWB of 1994-2004. In 2003 Iraq, I had 2 government marked magazines that would compress but not release, keeping pressure off the rounds. Of course, if I'd have had the opportunity prior to the deployment I'd have wandered down to the local sporting goods store and bought my own. I was also a grenadier that tour, but kept the pistol on my lap while driving non-uparmored HMMWVs.
Second tour I again had both a carbine and pistol. I had the opportunity to do a lot of training with our resident FTF and the mobile trainers that came around. The pistol never failed. I added CT grips which were a nice touch for low-light/NOD shooting, and brought my own Mec-Gar magazines.
Third tour I was a DA Civilian. I had an M-4 until the new SOFA with Karzai said that no civilians could carry rifles. Had to turn that in, and roll with just the M-9 from then on. The one time I pulled the pistol I remember being cognizant of just how weak a weapon it was in the face of rifle and rifle grenade fire. I couldn't have an M-4 because it was not considered a defensive weapon, but an M-9 isn't much good for defense when you're being shot at 100-200 meters out. The CT grips and magazines came back for this tour too.
I had the same issue. I found that when I would go to power stroke the pistol (as in tap/rack), I could index the first two fingers of my weak hand under the safety lever to keep it from being accidentally activated.
Since it was my last line of defense, I bought a 92FS and got good with it, even if it was never my favorite pistol. I didn't like the 2 trigger pulls, hated the DA especially. My thumb couldn't reliably reach the safety, so I would carry safety off, half cocked. The purpose of half-cocking after decocking was to get the trigger into that much more reachable a position, and it stiffened up the safety mechanism so that it was less likely to be activated unintentionally.
Of the 3 I was issued downrange, only 1 was unreliable, and that was due to magazines. Ironically enough, I blame the AWB of 1994-2004. In 2003 Iraq, I had 2 government marked magazines that would compress but not release, keeping pressure off the rounds. Of course, if I'd have had the opportunity prior to the deployment I'd have wandered down to the local sporting goods store and bought my own. I was also a grenadier that tour, but kept the pistol on my lap while driving non-uparmored HMMWVs.
Second tour I again had both a carbine and pistol. I had the opportunity to do a lot of training with our resident FTF and the mobile trainers that came around. The pistol never failed. I added CT grips which were a nice touch for low-light/NOD shooting, and brought my own Mec-Gar magazines.
Third tour I was a DA Civilian. I had an M-4 until the new SOFA with Karzai said that no civilians could carry rifles. Had to turn that in, and roll with just the M-9 from then on. The one time I pulled the pistol I remember being cognizant of just how weak a weapon it was in the face of rifle and rifle grenade fire. I couldn't have an M-4 because it was not considered a defensive weapon, but an M-9 isn't much good for defense when you're being shot at 100-200 meters out. The CT grips and magazines came back for this tour too.
I had the same issue. I found that when I would go to power stroke the pistol (as in tap/rack), I could index the first two fingers of my weak hand under the safety lever to keep it from being accidentally activated.
I liked it. It was comfortable to shoot, light-recoiling, and accurate.
Any defects in its stopping power are the fault of its ammunition, not the gun.
Any defects in its stopping power are the fault of its ammunition, not the gun.
ApacheCoTodd
member
I loathed that gun initially and found it impossible to fire "expert" with for several qualifying iterations unlike my point-and-zen 1911s.
We would go to the range with M-9s, foreign weapons outa the arms room and personal weapons and no matter what, I couldn't get the hang of that thing. I could shoot a team mates Taurus M-9 clone to expert and my CZ75 as well on the same day with the same ammo - even our rattle-trap Hi-Powers - and still just barely qualify with the M-9.
Eventually, I got my head outa my butt as we were going to be teaching pistol craft overseas with the M-9 among others and I didn't want to be relegated to a side act out of my inability to master the M-9 due to some personal issues with it. Once I got past my irrational dislike and took to re-learning to accurately and effectively fire the Beretta, it was hop, skip and jump to the expert level.
So, over time I came to respect the pistol, its capacity, reliability, accuracy and general sense of security it afforded as a side-arm. We still tended to draw 1911s for interior offensive handguns but that's were our training led us for that narrow application.
We would go to the range with M-9s, foreign weapons outa the arms room and personal weapons and no matter what, I couldn't get the hang of that thing. I could shoot a team mates Taurus M-9 clone to expert and my CZ75 as well on the same day with the same ammo - even our rattle-trap Hi-Powers - and still just barely qualify with the M-9.
Eventually, I got my head outa my butt as we were going to be teaching pistol craft overseas with the M-9 among others and I didn't want to be relegated to a side act out of my inability to master the M-9 due to some personal issues with it. Once I got past my irrational dislike and took to re-learning to accurately and effectively fire the Beretta, it was hop, skip and jump to the expert level.
So, over time I came to respect the pistol, its capacity, reliability, accuracy and general sense of security it afforded as a side-arm. We still tended to draw 1911s for interior offensive handguns but that's were our training led us for that narrow application.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Never issued one. Barely passed a glance at the Corpman's. In fact, the Corpman didn't seem to pay much attention to his M9 either. He had an M4, and I had an M16.
My dad has a 92FS. It has failed to impress. I'll jump on the bandwagon that has it far to big for what it is. I mean my Glock 20 is a pretty big pistol, but at least it offers 15+1 of 10mm Auto. My Glock 19 is superior to the M9 in every single respect. It is simpler, more reliable, at least as durable, has the same capacity, but is lighter in weight, and smaller.
Then there is the trigger. I am not known here for my support of DA/SA autos. I generally despise them. In fact, my support of an automatic handgun is inversely proportional to how double-action it is. The M9 doesn't even have the ability to be carried cocked and locked, which means, IMO, it flat out sucks. But even if you're going to put two distinctly different trigger pulls on the same handgun, you could at least make them decent trigger pulls. The DA pull on my dad's 92FS has got to be at least 11 pounds, and feels like dragging a cinder block across gravel with only your finger.
I guess you could say coming from Italy explains a lot, but why is the safety/decocker so bass-ackwards? How did we go from an ergonomic masterpiece like the 1911 to this "flip up for fire," slide mounted safety monstrosity? O yeah, they offered us access to airbases in Italy where we could land B-52s
My dad has a 92FS. It has failed to impress. I'll jump on the bandwagon that has it far to big for what it is. I mean my Glock 20 is a pretty big pistol, but at least it offers 15+1 of 10mm Auto. My Glock 19 is superior to the M9 in every single respect. It is simpler, more reliable, at least as durable, has the same capacity, but is lighter in weight, and smaller.
Then there is the trigger. I am not known here for my support of DA/SA autos. I generally despise them. In fact, my support of an automatic handgun is inversely proportional to how double-action it is. The M9 doesn't even have the ability to be carried cocked and locked, which means, IMO, it flat out sucks. But even if you're going to put two distinctly different trigger pulls on the same handgun, you could at least make them decent trigger pulls. The DA pull on my dad's 92FS has got to be at least 11 pounds, and feels like dragging a cinder block across gravel with only your finger.
I guess you could say coming from Italy explains a lot, but why is the safety/decocker so bass-ackwards? How did we go from an ergonomic masterpiece like the 1911 to this "flip up for fire," slide mounted safety monstrosity? O yeah, they offered us access to airbases in Italy where we could land B-52s
Mainsail
Member
When I flew Starlifters we carried the S&W Model 15 snub concealed under our flightsuits. I preferred ankle carry and it worked much better for me than the cheesy shoulder holsters the AF issued. When we went to the M9 they bought even cheesier shoulder holsters. Concealment was completely lost as it was pretty obvious there was something big in your armpit. I shot expert with the M9, but for carry I preferred the Model 15.
I was a USAF cop back when we had .38 revolvers, but own a 92FS and like it very much. The subtle relief cut on the backstrap does make it fit my hand better than a M-9.
My son did three Army combat tours and went back as a "contractor". He has killed more men with a pistol than anyone else I've met, possibly other than the late Col. Chas. Askins, the gun writer. Nine dead men, all with 9mm's.
He finds the M-9 accurate and reliable, assuming that the gun is in good condition and well maintained and used with Beretta or Meg-Gar magazines. He bought his own mags.
It is too large for some hands, especially for women. And it's big for a pilot to carry, esp. if he needs to conceal it if evading in civilian clothing. The M-11 SIG is supposed to be issued to such people, but I doubt that it always is. I gather that the Navy is better about getting M-11's (SIG P-228's) to their aircrews than the AF is. Military investigators are supposed to get M-11's, too. This includes NCIS, whose agents are civilians.
When Capt. Scott O'Grady was shot down over Bosnia, he found that his M-9 rusted while he evaded enemy patrols for a week. Stainless is indicated. He also was disappointed in his issued survival knife, preferring his Swiss Army knife. I think he should have had a Randall or Fallkniven sheath knife.
I recommend his book, "Return With Honor."
Oh: An AF cop shot an AK-47- wielding man at about 80 yards with his M-9. One shot kill. Most can't do that with a .45.
My son did three Army combat tours and went back as a "contractor". He has killed more men with a pistol than anyone else I've met, possibly other than the late Col. Chas. Askins, the gun writer. Nine dead men, all with 9mm's.
He finds the M-9 accurate and reliable, assuming that the gun is in good condition and well maintained and used with Beretta or Meg-Gar magazines. He bought his own mags.
It is too large for some hands, especially for women. And it's big for a pilot to carry, esp. if he needs to conceal it if evading in civilian clothing. The M-11 SIG is supposed to be issued to such people, but I doubt that it always is. I gather that the Navy is better about getting M-11's (SIG P-228's) to their aircrews than the AF is. Military investigators are supposed to get M-11's, too. This includes NCIS, whose agents are civilians.
When Capt. Scott O'Grady was shot down over Bosnia, he found that his M-9 rusted while he evaded enemy patrols for a week. Stainless is indicated. He also was disappointed in his issued survival knife, preferring his Swiss Army knife. I think he should have had a Randall or Fallkniven sheath knife.
I recommend his book, "Return With Honor."
Oh: An AF cop shot an AK-47- wielding man at about 80 yards with his M-9. One shot kill. Most can't do that with a .45.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
