OP
Glenn R. McMannly
Member
As far as I know, that load was brought out with the M17 rollout. Since the military no longer uses M9s I'd be surprised if there were any reports.
The Beretta M9
- Thread starter Glenn R. McMannly
- Start date
As far as I know, that load was brought out with the M17 rollout. Since the military no longer uses M9s I'd be surprised if there were any reports.
I own 2 of them an American Model and an Italian Model. Its a rather large pistol, but so was the 1911 pistol. Both of mine are adequately accurate for their intended use, I have no complaints there. Trigger pulls are acceptable and sights are acceptable. Both are stone cold reliable even with handloads (mine). I would not buy the later made downgraded models that have plasticky triggers and plasticky safeties and cast locking blocks (which have been known to crack). When Beretta did that I washed my hands of the company for good. Other models like their M84 .380 pistol were also downgraded with what I consider sub-standard parts compared to the original pats.
I think Beretta screwed up big time when they discontinued their .25 acp Jetfire (Italian made without the safety). It was very reliable and very small, just perfect for summer carry.
As far as the 9mm being inferior to larger calibers? Not true, with modern bullets you would not want to be shot with one.
As a matter of fact in 1945 34 years after the U.S. adopted the .45 acp caliber they finally got around to test it for penetration and it failed catastrophically, the bullets bounced off a military helmet at only a scant 35 yards while the 9x19 penetrated the helmet at an unbelievable and astonishing 125 yards and might have been able to do it even further away but no one that day could hit the helmet beyond 125 yards (see the book "The Inglis Diamond").
This is the reason the Germans dropped the 115 grain bullets and went to the much deeper penetrating 124 grain bullets. Unfortueately the FBI never read up on their firearms history and issued the 115 grain bullets and got trounced in the infamous Miami shootout. This shootout has been the whipping boy for people who like to denigrate the 9x19 as they understand less about the caliber than the FBI did.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 9,234
- Reaction score
- 11,450
Some good points mixed with textbook-type material in this post. Whether it's prudent to be a disciple of FBI and military testing is up to the individual; I'm certainly no expert. Learn to shoot well. No handgun cartridge is perfect. One can obsess over this stuff endlessly wasting much time in the process.
People look to the FBI as if they are the last word, and they are not. Like any federal agency there is a lot of bureaucratic infighting and disagreement. The separate factions and infighting in play in the FBI before and after the Miami shootout was notable, but typical.
There was a big debate between rapid energy dump and penetration camps, and the energy dump advocates prevailed pre Miami. The FBI knee jerked away from the 115 gr bullet - and the whole rapid expansion energy dump theory - after the Miami shoot out. But there were already well documented issues with under penetration long before the FBI even adopted the 9mm. In any case post Miami they went with a 147gr round for penetration but had way too much of it and found that was also sub par. That led to the 10mm disaster followed by the "did ok on average, but did nothing really well .40 S&W" years.
The whole event did however lead to a better understanding for the need to use real world shoot data to see what actually works, and then test those good performing rounds in ballistic gel to see what kind of performance those rounds produce.
It's ironic that some shooters argue that real world data is flawed and that gel test results are the only way to go - failing to understand that the real world data is how the gel test standards were derived to help reliably and consistently measure new loads against proven rounds. They seem to forget the validity of the gel standards is based on real world performance.
It's also obvious that way too many self defense shooters view the FBI standards as sacrosanct even though an armed citizen isn't going to be shooting in situations where law enforcement officers might. For example, in most states, armed citizen can't shoot at fleeing felons or assailants who are actively retreating. Armed citizens also don't have to apprehend assailants. They should also not being going into dangerous situations looking for trouble.
Since nearly all valid armed citizen self defense shoots are going to be not all that many degrees off of face to face, the difference between 10" and 12" penetration in ballistic gel isn't significant. But due to the lack of any latitude from the courts (criminal and civil) if an armed citizen hits a by stander, either with a miss or a pass through round, accurate bullet placement and limiting penetration to the 18" end of the standard are much more important.
There's also the reality that somewhere north of 95% of the time the cartridge used just doesn't matter. Depending on the study around 80% to 90% of the time the handgun is never fired in a defensive handgun use. When it is fired, and an assailant is hit, they flee or surrender at least half the time regardless of the cartridge and handgun being used.
So in short, screw the whole caliber and magazine capacity debates and carry whatever handgun and cartridge you can shoot really well.
Oh I don't disagree. I am one of those that finds the M9 on the big side. I do shoot it very well though. And like Rocketmedic says, if I'm going to war so is my M9 or 92X.The various trials in the 1950s were long before the XM9 trials in 1979-1980, and then again in 1984, so its apples and oranges. Beretta only had the Model 1951 at the time the 1950's trials, and I don't believe it was entered.
In regard to the XM-9 trials, the S&W 459 was the S&W entrant in those trials which were strictly limited to double action semi auto pistols.
That DA requirement disqualified what became the FN SFS Hi Power (bottom), even though it accomplished the same goal very elegantly, without separate DA and SA trigger pulls. They also entered a double action development of the Hi Power, what became the HP-DA (center), but it just wasn't successful.
The Browning BDM (Browing Dual Mode) (top) was developed later for the FBI trials and it also was not successful (personally, I think it just feels funny).
But... the original points in my posts are two fold:
- If the US Military had adopted a 9mm pistol in the 1950's it would have allowed a more modern 9mm pistol about 30 years sooner; and
- the Beretta adopted in the XM-9 was a poor fit for many troops.
The US Military would have been better served by issuing a development contract for a variant of the XM9 that incorporated better ergonomics, along the lines of the current Beretta 92X with thinner grips and a short reach trigger.
halfmoonclip
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 274
- Reaction score
- 247
shil, found a Vertec frame to fit my M9; it's noticeably smaller than the original, and fits my hand better. I've kept the M9 marked 92, for its service pistol record, but use the Vertec grip
Moon
I don't believe Evan Marshall & Ed Sanow have gotten the credit they deserve. At least their findings were based on actual shootings.
sousana
Member
Way back, when Beretta put out the Military branch commemorative models.marjed for each branch along with branch specific aluminum grips, bought 2 of each still nib, and at a gunshot I picked up another one, the US navy version, traded an Essex 1911 for it.
doubleclaw
Member
Have been a big fan of them since the 1990s. The M17 is trash.
One of the most accurate non-custom pistols I ever owned was what's referred to as the "ghost" model-all stainless Italian made 92. I got talked out of it by a Beretta collector. Can you see what influenced me? LOL Jean Reno's character's pistol, not little Robbie's' 
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 3
I have an 92G-SD which is DA/SA 9mm. This pistol was made in Italy in 2005, and I purchased it new in that year. I appreciate this pistol because of the decades of improvements and modifications which were made to improve its shortcomings which were exposed by its military use. The frame was corrected to withstand the use of "hot" loads by some military branches. The magazine has been improved to withstand sands of desert climate. By the time that Beretta lost the military contract to Sig, there was very little to be improved about the pistol.
I would never use this pistol as a CCW because of its size and bulk. I did purchase an Alessi shoulder holster rig for use rather than a side holster.
But as a home defense weapon I cannot think of a better nightstand pistol and that was the purpose for which I originally purchased. The picatinny rail allows for a light/laser unit so that I am able to see and recognize a target in the middle of the night.
As a carry pistol, I use a 9mm Beretta 1951, Italian made. It is single stack magazine, compact, and very concealable.
I would never use this pistol as a CCW because of its size and bulk. I did purchase an Alessi shoulder holster rig for use rather than a side holster.
But as a home defense weapon I cannot think of a better nightstand pistol and that was the purpose for which I originally purchased. The picatinny rail allows for a light/laser unit so that I am able to see and recognize a target in the middle of the night.
As a carry pistol, I use a 9mm Beretta 1951, Italian made. It is single stack magazine, compact, and very concealable.
DWalt
Member
I had a cousin, now deceased, who was a judge for almost 40 years. He always carried a Beretta 1951 under his robe. Pretty sure he never needed to use it.
I can't image that 10 grains of bullet weight would make a noticeable difference.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 9,234
- Reaction score
- 11,450
I think you're right.
Stupid question, but is M9 Govt. talk for Model 92** Beretta?
Yes, the 92FS
I used to keep multiples of popular guns on hand as an 01 FFL (pre 1995). Later I disposed of most inventory but kept this "Centurion" (short slide/full size frame) because it is 100% in every aspect. 25 years ago CDNN was blowing out extra parts so I got the factory SS barrel (and necessary new locking block) that doesn't get "smilies" on top, cocobolo stocks and SS screws for $75. They had US "military reject" M9 mags for $10/ea at the same time. Mags had a powder coat issue that didn't affect function at all. Sometimes "new" ain't better. Joe
That "powder coat" mag finish was heavy phosphating that caused malfunctions in feeding in Iraq. Beretta warned the Army to not do that, but……..
I'm glad to get the reason mags were $10. I haven't had any problems with them although I prefer the MecGar 18 rounders. Joe
sousana
Member
When a local gun dealer, who was at every gunshot decided to retire, that Sunday, he gave me the option to buy all his mags at way below cost. I did. Had cases of military contract mags for the m9, tons of 1911 mags, cases of oem BHP mags, glock mags but most prizes of all? Case upon case of oem S&W 3rd gen factory mags. I'd say, to this day, I've only touched maybe 0.89 percent of the mags. Not one issue with those phosphate mags, but again, I'm not using them in desert conditions. I myself prefer the mec gar 18s, but I've also found the act work 100%
