SIG M17 vs Beretta 92

[SwampWolf]

I like both pistols and have one of each. But, I have to wonder, given the relatively minor role any pistol plays in a military context, why the switch, given the necessitating cost constraints involved, from Beretta to SIG? Is it just the SIG's modular flexibility and/or a striker-fired vs hammer-fired configuration or is the SIG simply a better pistol for military use? Just looking for opinions.

 

[md7]

Good question. Just giving an opinion, per your request, and without doing any research I’d opine that it’s either due to modularity, cost, or perhaps both.

And like you, I think both are fine handguns.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

The Italian Stallion will never be forgotten.

It was the greatest U.S. service pistol in history IMO.

The M17 has tremendous shoes to fill, and is a much uglier looking handgun,

 

[jmr40]

given the relatively minor role any pistol plays in a military context, why the switch,

Pistols have taken on a much bigger role on the modern battlefield than in the past. They are front line weapons within many special forces missions.

I've owned 1911's, Beretta 92's, Sig 226, and currently the Sig M17. I sold the 92's and 226's keeping the 1911's for historical reasons and simply like the M17 much better than the 92 or 226.

While the Beretta 92 and Sig 226 are fine weapons, and I'd use either with confidence if issued either gun, I'm not a fan of the DA/SA design. I can use it, but don't have to like it. The M17 and M18 are lighter to carry than either, hold more ammo, and have much better triggers along with the 1911 style safety I prefer.

I think it was time to look at something more modern, simpler, and probably cheaper to manufacture. Many of the Beretta's had been used for years and were due to be replaced. I'm betting it was cheaper to go with a new gun than try to replace all of the worn out 92's with new 92's.

Our local PD ran into that a few years ago. They had a bunch of 20-25 year old Smith 5906's that were worn out. The top brass really wanted to stay with the 5906, but it was a LOT cheaper to buy all new Glocks. Plus the vast majority of cops on the street really wanted Glocks anyway.

 

[mljdeckard]

The M-9s I unpacked new in 1993 were fantastic. The one I deployed with in 2011 was dreadful. I complained, and got told that I had to keep it because I was smart enough to keep it running, and if I traded it out, it would just go to another soldier who doesn't. (Meticulous cleaning and lots of lube, failure to decock, many safety malfunctions.) Much of this was likely due to dreadful army maintenence policies.

Is the M-17 better? I can't well imagine it being worse. I haven't shot one yet (in my unit, there is 'officially' only one, for the company commander) and I suspect I won't like it as much as the Sig "P" series. But I bet that one that is issued to a dozen soldiers and goes back and forth to the sandbox a couple of times will come home better than an M-9.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

The M17 is cheaper, modular, suppressor ready, has simpler controls, and requires less training to use effectively.

Oh, did I mention its cheaper?

One justification which I do like, assuming its true, is that the lower price will allow them to buy more and issue them more widely. Another way to look at it is that we may need lots of cheap, easy-to- manufacture weapons in the coming decade......

 

[Jimbo80]

Seems like cheaper is always the first thing they consider.

 

[rbernie]

Everything wears out eventually - as I have heard things, when it came time to either recommit to the platform or acquire something new, the ability to find pistols that met all performance criteria and were suitable for smaller hands was a significant factor in the decision to open up a new competition.

 

[.455_Hunter]

The Army is susceptible to trendy fanboydom and Kool aid drinking just as much as any other organization. The lastest Vertec gripped 92 variants in full-size, Centurion, and Compact would has covered the bases with a bit of engineering.

 

[AustinTX]

Is it just the SIG's modular flexibility and/or a striker-fired vs hammer-fired configuration or is the SIG simply a better pistol for military use? Just looking for opinions.

Maybe the M17/M18's unique versatility as both a striker- and hammer-fired platform was hard to ignore.

 

[BreechFace]

Maybe the M17/M18's unique versatility as both a striker- and hammer-fired platform was hard to ignore.

Lol

 

[Nature Boy]

Pistols have taken on a much bigger role on the modern battlefield than in the past. They are front line weapons within many special forces missions.

I disagree. It’s actually the exact opposite. A pistol on the modern battlefield is as superfluous as carrying a saber. The only time it’s a front line weapon for special forces, or any forces, is on a Hollywood move set.

 

[Zerodefect]

Weight. Theres no hiding the M9's weight and size. Troops are too heavy. Every once counts. I'd consider leaving my pistol behind.

They should have just went with a regular Glock 17 and quality kydex holsters.

 

[BreechFace]

I disagree. It’s actually the exact opposite. A pistol on the modern battlefield is as superfluous as carrying a saber. The only time it’s a front line weapon for special forces, or any forces, is on a Hollywood move set.

Exactly. Did you know that there are quite a few troops (mainly guard troops) that go through all of basic without touching (or at the most a minimal training) a handgun? I have a family member for that just finished with the guard a couple of years ago and never touched a handgun in basic only M4’s.

There is a reason why the M4 was adopted for CQB and the 11.5” barreled M4 is used so much when clearing rooms or fighting at handgun distances the soldiers all want a rifle round and for good reason, they flat just work a magnitude better than a pistol.

If a front line soldier is putting down his M4 for his sidearm pistol, something has gone very bad.

 

[Zerodefect]

Out of ammo, jam, gun got shot and is broken. Quick transition to pistol.

If I was going door to door, I'd definitely carry a sidearm.

 

[rbernie]

My limited service never put me on a two-way range, but I work with a number of folk who were in active combat MOSs. None of them ever had occasion to revert to the nine. In fact, if you ask them, they will tell you that if you’re transitioning to your pistol - it is likely becoming the worst day evar.

 

[bassjam]

I remember reading one of the justifications for the switch was the lighter weight, lighter trigger pull (compared to the DA pull) and apparently smaller grip size was all more friendly to female soldiers.
Not the mention reasons already given such as worn out handguns that were in dire need of replacement anyway. So why not add modularity and update to a striker fired while they're at it?

 

[BreechFace]

Out of ammo, jam, gun got shot and is broken. Quick transition to pistol.

Yup, something went very bad. But that would be cause to fall in line behind a teammate with a more effective primary weapon until the firearm situation is resolved. Unless the situation demanded you to continue forward with a pistol it would be used as cover or ending an immediate threat and reposition to a rear position until the primary is back up and running.

If I was going door to door, I'd definitely carry a sidearm.

No doubt, but they are a distant second in a warfighters mind if he can get his rifle back in action with a quick mag change.

 

[Zerodefect]

If you can. And if the guy behind you is ready to roll in. CQB, you might have the bad guy right in your face.

Transitioning to pistol is quicker than reloading. Especially if your carbine needs reloading because something failed. My Recon buddy never checked his carbine on reloads, just fed it, and fed it. They were never instructed to quick check the bore while reaching for the next mag.

Doing a speed reload to be rewarded with just another "click", really sucks.

 

[crestoncowboy]

It was the greatest U.S. service pistol in history IMO.

I'm shocked, given your handle. Lol.

I own p series sigs, USPs, Beretta 92, 1911, 320 etc etc all excellent guns.

If going into battle I'm carrying my rifle or shotgun and a Glock.

Why did they change? I truly don't know. I have a 320. I wouldn't take it over a 92. Nor vice versa.

I do wish the military would carry and use a gun designed and made in America from an American company. Not a Croatian XD. Not a Czech colt. Not a Sig, not a heckler and..... some other word that American servicemen are afraid to try to pronounce. I suppose it may have to be a Smith or Ruger. Neither of which I care for in a semi auto but they are fine guns. Or a hi point. But the weight alone would cause them to have to carry a few less m4 mags. Lol

 

[Old Dog]

A pistol on the modern battlefield is as superfluous as carrying a saber. The only time it’s a front line weapon for special forces, or any forces, is on a Hollywood move set.

I'm gonna disagree just a little bit here. The "modern battlefield" can be a bit different than battlefields in days of yore. Especially with the MOUT in Iraq, there are numerous accounts of personnel having to transition to their sidearms. I don't have any personal heroes, but if I did, it'd be this guy:
https://coffeeordie.com/mike-day-seal/
And any rate, I had an M9 in nice shape on my very last deployment, the deployment before then, not so much, but I still love the pistol (most often carried in Condition 1, round chambered, de-cocked, safety off).

I'd feel just as comforted with the M17/M18 (I have both). But, I much prefer the trigger on the SIG -- and the great night sights. Not really a toss-up for me; although as a traditionalist, I have great affection for the M9 (and the 1911, of course), if I had the choice, it'd be the SIG.

 

[jdh]

The Italian Stallion will never be forgotten.

It was the greatest U.S. service pistol in history IMO.

Jeff Cooper on the M9 pistol:
"The unanimous and independently reached impression of those who shot the piece here at the ranch is that it was not designed by, or for, shooters . . . the old 1911 Colt is the best thing in common use at this time."

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I don't buy the cheaper argument at all, suppressor ready one, nor the smaller grip one. Beretta gave them pretty much exactly what they asked for in the M9A3. Different/smaller grip, threaded barrel and since you had a ton of M9s already you would not need to buy all the mags, holsters and supporting gear to go to a new pistol. Plus, don't need to train people again.

The interchangeable grip frame may be of limited use from what I saw when I was in depending on where those extra grip frames are kept. You may well get the pistol the person before you had and those grip frames are at a higher level than your unit so you may just get what you get.

In the end, the Generals of this generation who have been running a constant fashion show focused on new uniforms every 4yrs or so wanted a new pistol so they got one.

Little to no gain over the M9A3.

Full disclosure, I am a Beretta fan. Saw a LOT of ammo put down range from them over the years with very few failures.

I don't think a pistol on the battlefield is a key item, but I didn't kick in doors for a living when I was in. That said, I left the wire once with only a pistol but then traded it for an M4 and kept that for the next year and 1000's of miles in OEF. Out in open spaces the M9 would have been of very limited use to me even if I did like it. M4 wasn't ideal in the open spaces, often wanted something with more reach.

 

[FL-NC]

I like both pistols and have one of each. But, I have to wonder, given the relatively minor role any pistol plays in a military context, why the switch, given the necessitating cost constraints involved, from Beretta to SIG? Is it just the SIG's modular flexibility and/or a striker-fired vs hammer-fired configuration or is the SIG simply a better pistol for military use? Just looking for opinions.

All of the above. The M9 has many design flaws and points of failure. The transitional DA trigger has always been a PITA for instructors to deal with in developing proficiency for new pistol users. The Sig is also more reliable in general, and has more modularity into different sizes for different uses, ability to easily mount a light, and is much more user-friendly for service members with smaller hands. Remember that not everyone is a thick muscled meat head that serves in the military- we come in all shapes and sizes, with over 14% being female- and those ladies almost always in a support field, which likely has them issued a sidearm. As far as the "role" of any weapons system- if a handgun is what you have at whatever time and place you find yourself in a gunfight, that handgun is playing a major role. Also keep in mind that MOST weapons in the custody of the US mil never actually get fired at an enemy. In fact, MOST service members never even out their eyes on an enemy combatant.- the last 20 years of unpleasantness notwithstanding.

 

[tarosean]

You own both what is your preference?