1sailor
Member
Being only vaguely familiar with the P38 I am not aware of all the similarities between it and the M9. Can you please explain.
The Beretta M9
- Thread starter Glenn R. McMannly
- Start date
I have 2 92's and really like them, one is a standard M9 A1 and the other is a 92 X
VaTom
Member
My 1985 Italian Made 92f. The model selected by the military and the year it was chosen. Smooth, reliable, accurate, and beautiful fit and finish. Alongside my 1943 Ithaca 1911A1 for comparison for those who say it is too large. 
Last edited:
eclayton
Member
I understand some people's feelings about the Beretta's grip size and trigger reach, but I do not have large hands and never had a problem shooting it. After 25 years with it in the Marine Corps, it is one of only a few pistols I can pick up with my eyes closed, point it down range, and open my eyes to find the sights perfectly aligned. So I guess I will always love my 92FS with G conversion.
Sure. The P38 uses a locking block acting on two slots in the slide to lock the two together until pressure has gone down. This system was copied directly, almost exactly, in designing the 92/M9. The P38 was the first DA/SA trigger system using the slide mounted safety as a decocker. Again, copied directly to the 92 series.
The open top slide with exposed barrel was used on the P38. The P38 recoil springs are in the frame, either side of the mag well. When Beretta wanted to make a double stack magazine, having the recoil springs outside the mag well was no longer practical (too wide). The recoil spring was moved to under the barrel with the frame and slide lengthened to accommodate the move. The P38's front sight, on the barrel, was moved to the forward bridge of the slide since it was now so near the muzzle.
So, copied trigger system, locking system, safety system, open slide design. Beretta added a button on the right side to lock the takedown lever, otherwise the same. Beretta eliminated the loaded chamber indicator and, as discussed above, lengthened slide and frame for the relocated recoil spring.
I was still on active duty when the M9 was adopted. Tankers are issued pistols as their normally assigned individual weapon. First units to get the Beretta were infantry and MPs. There were many, if not most, Armor units still carrying M1911A1s through the first Gulf war. Convenient, since tanks were also carrying a pair of M3A1 grease guns until 1995.
I shot it OK, never really warmed to it.
I shot it OK, never really warmed to it.
I have small hands and never found my M9 difficult to handle. I love the way the slides on Berettas feel like they are on grease.....so slick and smooth. And easily the most accurate semi-auto I own. I also have an early compact model.....very nice pistols indeed.
Rimfire Fanatic
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2025
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 40
If I was going to be stuck using ball ammo, I would rather have a 45. I wonder if the military will take up using some of the solid fluted bullets that disrupt fluids like a propeller in water?
My Armor unit got new in the wrap M9's right from the Accokeek MD plant. (circa 1994-95 IIRC)Came with Magazines Stamped Made in Italy. They were a tight fit in our Black leather M7 shoulder holsters. Since they were brand new and not rattle trap 1911's, everyone was thrilled. Qual scores did increase, but most still sucked with them...I eventually invested in a Bianchi Shoulder holster for carry.
Pro tip: Most people suck shooting a handgun.
I liked them, but was never thrilled with the DA/SA trigger. Lots of new privates fresh from OSUT told us there Drill Sgts were teaching them to "Quickly rap off the first rd in DA and not worry about hitting" So they could quickly get to SA and then start making hits. Not surprised by that as I knew many DS.
The Army version had goofy sights where you had to form a "snowman" for a sight picture instead of sticky with three dots like the civilian version.
The Army was always stupid with handgun training and taught the Decocker as a safety. Handgun Quals were stupid easy and yet most struggled (Back to that Pro Tip).
I did purchase my own 92FS so I had a practice pistol. It shot well. I did break a trigger return spring which was a known weakness and replaced it with a Wolff version.
When I retired, I sold it and bought a Gen 3 G17. I never looked back or missed the 92FS.
It was a reliable pistol with poor ergonomics that a person who knows how to shoot handguns can make work. But its an older design and there are better options.
Just mt experience with them.
Pro tip: Most people suck shooting a handgun.
I liked them, but was never thrilled with the DA/SA trigger. Lots of new privates fresh from OSUT told us there Drill Sgts were teaching them to "Quickly rap off the first rd in DA and not worry about hitting" So they could quickly get to SA and then start making hits. Not surprised by that as I knew many DS.
The Army version had goofy sights where you had to form a "snowman" for a sight picture instead of sticky with three dots like the civilian version.
The Army was always stupid with handgun training and taught the Decocker as a safety. Handgun Quals were stupid easy and yet most struggled (Back to that Pro Tip).
I did purchase my own 92FS so I had a practice pistol. It shot well. I did break a trigger return spring which was a known weakness and replaced it with a Wolff version.
When I retired, I sold it and bought a Gen 3 G17. I never looked back or missed the 92FS.
It was a reliable pistol with poor ergonomics that a person who knows how to shoot handguns can make work. But its an older design and there are better options.
Just mt experience with them.
While the US signed the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 (Laws of Warfare), it did not ratify all of them. Among those was the prohibition against the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body. Despite the oft-repeated claim about "hollow points are against the Geneva convention" the Geneva conventions have nothing to do with it. The US military adheres to a policy of not using hollow-point ammunition in conventional warfare, though special forces may use them in specific situations. Guess who still has his old copy of FM 27-10?
HardToHandle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2016
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 886
Jeff Gurwitch just put out an enjoyable and educational video discussing his Special Forces 18B experience with the M9.
I had some limited M9 and 92F experience but still learned a lot.
Picture for interest. I love me the high-speed lanyard.
I had some limited M9 and 92F experience but still learned a lot.
Picture for interest. I love me the high-speed lanyard.
HardToHandle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2016
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 886
A bit of a clarifying update…
My understanding is the hollow-point restriction was removed from DOD policy during the M17/18 procurement. A Winchester sourced 147-gr hollow point was selected and a second barrier blind hollow point under consideration.
The Army's acquisition of a second hollow-point round for the M17 and M18 does also raise questions again about the general legality of these cartridges in actual combat. The service has said that the existing M1153 is approved for general combat use, despite the prohibition on the use of expanding ammunition in the Hague Convention of 1899.
It is worth noting that the United States has never signed or ratified that treaty, but has typically abided by its provisions, including not issuing hollow-point ammunition for previous sidearms on a general basis in the past. That being said, the U.S. military, and special operations units especially, due use hollow-point and fragmenting ammunition in certain cases based on the position that it is appropriate to use these rounds in combat when there is a "clear military necessity." These types of cartridges are particularly well suited to hostage rescue and close-quarters-combat scenarios where there are concerns about over-penetration putting friendly forces or innocent bystanders at risk.
The Army Has Been Buying Alternative "Barrier Blind" Hollow-Point Ammo For Its New Pistols
The cartridge is designed to better punch through obstacles such as windows or even just heavy clothing and then still work like it's supposed to.
www.twz.com
So, the DOD lawyers changed their mind.
Additional cite, OSD report: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/army/2017mhs.pdf
The only issue I have with what you wrote about the M9 is in the second paragraph. Qualification scores actually went up by a large margin after the transition to it from the M1911, which I was also there for.Let's broaden it out to the Beretta 92.
I lived through the transition from the M16A1 to the M16A2 and felt we lost more than we gained. I also lived through the transition from the 1911 to the M9 and felt the same.
It wasn't that moving to 9mm made sense, as it did. It's just the form factor of the M9 just didn't work for a much larger percentage of troops than was the case for the 1911. The M9s wide grip and long trigger reach made it difficult for many troops to shoot accurately. That was ironic given one of the selling points was the lower recoiling M9 would be more accurate for troops to shoot.
It's also a large frame pistol shooting a medium frame cartridge and consequently far larger than it needs to be.
I agree the M9 is very reliable when clean (and not worn out). The open top slide design has always been a plus in that regard. But open top slides also allow for a lot more potential for dust sand and dirt to enter the pistol, even in a flap holster. Add in rough phosphate finish magazines and fine desert sand and that reliability went south in a hurry. Add in an excessive and excessively repeated manual of arms and they also started breaking fire control parts prematurely.
---
That said, I like the Beretta 92.
The single stack Italian made Compact M is great for concealed carry. Comfortable to carry and easy to conceal, but large enough to shoot extremely well at speed.
The double stack Compact M has the same attributes but more magazine capacity. But that fatter mag causes the same problems that it does in the full size Model 92.
That fat grip is uniquely Beretta as the CZ 75's double stack magazine grip isn't nearly as wide, not much wider than the single stack Compact M.
I still like to carry it, but I had to find ultrathin grips and install a short reach trigger kit, to get the control with it that I want. And while I was at it. I also installed a short reset trigger bar to address the excessively long trigger reach as well as and extended mag release and a low profile de cock lever to address it's other faults.
----
In my experience, I US military could have done a better job selecting a pistol during the M9 trials - both of them. They also could have and should have set better ergonomic requirements and then adopted a suitably modified Beretta 92, rather than just adopting the M9 in its basic M92 form.
The one in my avatar is a M9A4 Centurion with a Leupold Delta Point.
Super accurate and holds 18+1.
Im a 6'5" tall knuckle dragged with big hands and with the Hogue grip, its a perfect fit
Super accurate and holds 18+1.
Im a 6'5" tall knuckle dragged with big hands and with the Hogue grip, its a perfect fit
The video in post #31 above is a good one...... two things from my perspective in shooting and carrying the 92 for the past 37 years. Wow!
I started out shooting revolvers, 48 years ago and still carry one in Penns Woods, and never found the DA/SA trigger to be an issue.
The 1985 M-9 is a dated design and execution of the Beretta 92........ lots of improvements to the design and options today. Check out Wilson Combat's Centurion Tactical to see most of the upgrades to the 92 that the M-9 never incorporated!
I started out shooting revolvers, 48 years ago and still carry one in Penns Woods, and never found the DA/SA trigger to be an issue.
The 1985 M-9 is a dated design and execution of the Beretta 92........ lots of improvements to the design and options today. Check out Wilson Combat's Centurion Tactical to see most of the upgrades to the 92 that the M-9 never incorporated!
I agree. The M9/92 does have a big grip, but my smallish hands do shoot it very well. In fact I have yet to find a type of handgun I can shoot as well. And that includes the 1911 that fits my hand like a custom made glove.
OP
Glenn R. McMannly
Member
There's no doubt some troops found the .45 ACP's recoil objectionable (although it was more an issue of magnitude than sharpness), and the lower recoil of the 9mm Luger helped in that regard, particularly in range qualification.
But a US 9mm Luger service pistol was envisioned as far back as 1947 and the 1949 trials included the 9mm Lightweight Colt Commander, the S&W X100, which became the Model 39, and a short slide allow version of the Browning Hi Power.
All of them would have offered the same reduced recoil and to carrying degrees increased magazine capacity in a handgun with a grip that would fit a larger percentage of troops than the eventual M9. The reality simply was we had plenty of serviceable 1911s in the decades following WWII period and the whole idea was eventually dropped.
Interestingly all of the above were excellent designs.
The S&W 39 enjoyed good commercial success and led to the S&W 59, one of the first "wonder nines".
The Colt Commander also enjoyed a great deal of success and is still one of the more commonly cloned semi auto pistols.
The short slide alloy frame variant of the Hi Power was revived by FM in the 1990s after they discontinued their license with FN, and is currently being produced by Girsan.
And of course the 1911 Lightweight commander was not only sold by Colt with success, but has also been marketed by Ruger, Kimber, and others.
But it does it better...............................
jdh
US Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,703
- Reaction score
- 1,180
Also, the Laws of Land Warfare only apply to a declared war between states. All's fair in love and fighting terrorists.
