SIG M17 vs Beretta 92

[SwampWolf]

You own both what is your preference?

If you're asking me, I have a slight preference for the Beretta. But I have larger hands and my le training over thirty years was predicated on a da/sa configuration ("Third Generation" Smith&Wesson autos). All that said, I carried a Remington Rand 1911 pistol while serving as an Air Policeman in the USAF back in the early sixties and that's the weapon I'd pick if push came to shove.

 

[halfmoonclip]

I have both, and a RR1911, because they are service weapons.
My M9 has worked well, but a vet buddy says the parked mags didn't work well in the grit of the sandbox.
The Vtec grip feels much better to me; the original grip seems too large. In single action, the M9 has a decent trigger, but the transition from double to single is not one I'd care for under stress.
Like the feel of the M18, and have been a SIG fan of late. Do prefer the trigger.
Moon

 

[westernrover]

The armed services needed to order more pistols. I've read various justifications for this from worn out 30+ year old M9 stocks to complaints from the users, to low inventories, etc. etc. With multiple justifications on-hand, there's no one answer as to why and various reasons will be highlighted by people wanting to make their own points. It's safe to say that the US needed to order more pistols.

With the money already spent by necessity, it made sense to evaluate new options instead of just ordering what they did 36 years ago. Beretta did initially submit the M9A3 as a parts-compatible improvement on the existing M9, which would have resulted in a lower overall cost. It was rejected early, seemingly because of the double-action/single-action (DA/SA). The language of the RFP implied that an always-consistent trigger was preferred, but barred single-actions. Beretta responded with the APX which was more seriously considered. I won't get into any of the other competitors or why SIG won, since that wasn't the question.

It suffices that the armed services needed more pistols. The M9 lacked the features in the specification. The M9A3 had the features required by the spec added on, but appears to have been ruled out due to the inconsistent trigger. The action type wasn't specified in the requirements, but there quite obviously were expectations with regard to the resulting "feel."

 

[westernrover]

The $580 million dollar contract obviously included more than just 420,000 M17/18's, which would cost $1380 each if they accounted for the whole cost of the contract. While full retail on an M17 might be over $600, the government is probably only paying a third of that. Without the M9A3's compatibility with existing inventory, there is no way the machine time needed for a completely novel design in the quantity specified could be cost-competitive with molded polymer frames. That's why the APX ditched the metal frame and no doubt why Kriss (who was also handicapped by DA/SA) dropped out. If you have a great product, and someone is looking to buy nearly half a million of them, you get involved. When you realize they're going to pay $200 apiece and you can't machine yours for less than $300, you walk away.

 

[JohnKSa]

Looking back at the initial Beretta bid, the cost of the pistols was close to 3/4 of the total bid. If we were to assume that the new SIG contract is roughly similar, that would suggest that the government is paying in the neighborhood of $900 per pistol.

 

[Mosin77]

If they’re facing a lot of impending expenses to refurbish or replace a bunch of worn out guns, it probably makes sense to “future proof” anyway by upgrading to the latest hotness. (Threaded bbl, polymer, trigger consistency, modularity, interchangeable grip panels, etc.)

 

[Ohen Cepel]

My M9 has worked well, but a vet buddy says the parked mags didn't work well in the grit of the sandbox.

Moon

Yes, those gritty mags were horrible! Seems someone messed up the requirements and forced the maker to put a sandy coating on the interior of the mags as well as the outside (which wasn't a good idea either). I found all of them in my command and got them replaced as they were simply horrible. Not made by Beretta though and the manufacturer (who I won't cite again since they took enough heat for the govie's mistake) tried to make them right.

Not an M17 fan but I would not flame it if someone bought a pile of Pro Mags for them which failed.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

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.

Yes but also no. Basic training is the same for National Guard and Reserve troops as it is for active component troops. In the Army all basic marksmanship training is conducted with the M4 because it is the primary service weapon. Trainees will do familiarization fire with infantry company MTOE weapons like the AT4, M-249, M-240B, M-2, and Mk 19. Military Police will train and qualify on the service pistol (I am unsure to what level the M17 has worked its way through TRADOC and whether M9s are still used anywhere or not) during their AIT.

So basically all Army soldiers go through basic training without touching a handgun, and only those soldiers who will routinely carry one will train with them in their MOS school. Soldiers who will carry one on deployment (officers, platoon weapons squad, sometimes medics, RTOs, non-combat arms troops who may never leave a FOB, etc.) will frequently get a brief block of instruction about the gun and then fire the qualification course prior to deployment. But otherwise there's basically no need. The sidearm is a secondary weapon for everyone who is carrying it.