Veterans: What do you think of the M9?

[aterry33]

Pretty much every vet I've talked to who has carried the M9 seems to have disliked it, or at least wished they had another pistol instead. I know a lot of that has to do with a preference for the M1911, and other preferences, etc., but what are your thoughts?

Complaints I have heard:
1) Not as reliable as the SIG or Glock
2) Heavy
3) Breakage

 

[Frailer]

I carried one for 20 years. My complaints:

It's too heavy and bulky.

Unless carried in a flap holster it was much too easy to inadvertently bump the safety off. As such, I would have greatly preferred no safety at all.

I should mention that I never experienced a reliability problem, but I took care of my magazines and never fired anything other than military ball ammo.

 

[Farmer17]

When they first came out I thought they were pretty cool looking, but the grip is too fat for my hand and I have med/large hands. I think they are a quality piece but they are probably one of my least favorites just because several other guns are so good. In double column, quality, guns I prefer the CZ-75 first followed by S&W m&p, Sig, Glock, Beretta, and Ruger last.

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

I can remember when the first M9's arrived at the 1st MarDiv, replacing our long worn out M1911A1's. We "Famfired" them for guard duty. They were withdrawn quickly. We were told due to frames cracking during firing and the fact you could jerk the slide foward and pull it off the frame...while loaded.
When they were re-issued as the M10, all of these problems were corrected (they should'nt have occurred in the first place). By that time I was out.
IMHO the modern Beretta pistol is a fine LE weapon where it is carried much, but used little. It is a huge pistol for the cartridge it fires. As a military weapon these days, I feel there are tougher designs out there...Glock (here comes the boos and hisses) immediately comes to mind.
I favor the Victorian policy of allowing those active service members in a combat theatre to purchase their own weapons provided they fire service ammunition. If I was going into combat tomorrow and was given my choice of handgun to carry, it would be the Browning Hi-Power. Unless you are in special forces, training with the pistol in the service to begin with is minimal at best.
Battles are NOT won with handguns; all of us know that. They are primarily defensive weapons. This being the modern case, I would suggest that except for corpsmen and medics, EVERY person in a combat enviroment neeeds to be packing an M4 rifle. That means all from slick sleeves to four stars.
When it really comes down to it, pistols aren't really needed in combat. They serve as badges of rank in most cases...and as attractors of "various incoming unpleasantness".

 

[Texas Star]

I respect the views expressed, but I like my Beretta much more than I'd feared that I would. I do have the current FS sort with the slight backstrap difference, and this makes it fit my hand better than the M-9's grip.

My son did three tours in Iraq, and never saw one break or fail, unless cheap aftermarket magazines were used. Beretta or Mec-Gar mags seem fine.

As for lethality, he dropped nine men with the M-9 and a Browning Hi-Power, the latter gun carried while working as a "contractor." (Mercenary soldier, to be less PC.)

He is an exceptional shot, and pretty cool in battle, I suspect. He'd rather have had JHP ammo, but the issue "ball" ammo worked, with good placement. He did fire several shots at some targets without waiting to see if one shot would suffice. But a shot in about the solar plexus did drop one insurgent with a Dragonov sniper rifle, as he ran across a room. A medic ran over and tried to save the man, but he died within a minute, scrabbling around on the floor. He was unable to offer battle.

The Beretta seems exceptionally reliable, even more so than the .45 that it replaced.

Because it has a DA trigger for the first shot, it is not a big deal if the safety get swiped off. Many users never employ the safety, unless maybe while loading the weapon.

The M-9 is bulky, and the recoil spring probably should be changed about every 3,000,rounds. Current civilian locking blocks seem far more durable than the early ones, but the military probably uses the old ones. One IPSC shooter says that he has over 100,000 rounds through some of his Berettas, with no frame or slide cracks.

Capt.Scott O'Grady did complain about rust on his M-9 while evading enemy forces after his F-16 was shot down over Bosnia. I think that aircrew should have stainless handguns.

Overall, next to the CZ-75B, I think I like the Beretta the best of the modern nines.

T-Star

 

[Texas Star]

I can remember when the first M9's arrived at the 1st MarDiv, replacing our long worn out M1911A1's. We "Famfired" them for guard duty. They were withdrawn quickly. We were told due to frames cracking during firing and the fact you could jerk the slide foward and pull it off the frame...while loaded.
When they were re-issued as the M10, all of these problems were corrected (they should'nt have occurred in the first place). By that time I was out.
IMHO the modern Beretta pistol is a fine LE weapon where it is carried much, but used little. It is a huge pistol for the cartridge it fires. As a military weapon these days, I feel there are tougher designs out there...Glock (here comes the boos and hisses) immediately comes to mind.
I favor the Victorian policy of allowing those active service members in a combat theatre to purchase their own weapons provided they fire service ammunition. If I was going into combat tomorrow and was given my choice of handgun to carry, it would be the Browning Hi-Power. Unless you are in special forces, training with the pistol in the service to begin with is minimal at best.
Battles are NOT won with handguns; all of us know that. They are primarily defensive weapons. This being the modern case, I would suggest that except for corpsmen and medics, EVERY person in a combat enviroment neeeds to be packing an M4 rifle. That means all from slick sleeves to four stars.
When it really comes down to it, pistols aren't really needed in combat. They serve as badges of rank in most cases...and as attractors of "various incoming unpleasantness".

What does "famfired" mean?

Thanks,

T-Star

 

[sigp220.45]

Wow, nobody's topping that review!

I was issued one as an Air Force cop, replacing my Model 15 Smith and Wesson. As much as I liked the Smith, going from a six shot .38 with the most feeble imaginable loads to a 15 shot 9mm with hot NATO ball seemed like a good deal.

I don't know what the protocol is now, but back then we carried them with a round in the chamber and the safety off, basically only using the safety as a decocker.

I believe famfired means "familiarization fired" - not qualified with it, just shot for familiarization.

 

[okie john]

When the M-9 was issued to 1st SFG(A), my company SGM let us bring personal weapons to the range for a shoot-off. We compared it to SIGs, Brownings and Glocks. Some were easier to shoot well than others, but all were accurate and reliable. That said, I preferred the 1911.

The only thing I liked about the M-9 was that GI ball had a very flat trajectory. I got to do some Keith style long-range work on Range 39 at Ft. Lewis one time. Dropping E-type silhouettes out to 200m was no big deal. I know that pinging someone at 200m with a 9mm would only piss them off, but it was a comforting last-ditch kind of skill to have.


Okie John

 

[Texas Star]

When the M-9 was issued to 1st SFG(A), my company SGM let us bring personal weapons to the range for a shoot-off. We compared it to SIGs, Brownings and Glocks. Some were easier to shoot well than others, but all were accurate and reliable. That said, I preferred the 1911.

The only thing I liked about the M-9 was that GI ball had a very flat trajectory. I got to do some Keith style long-range work on Range 39 at Ft. Lewis one time. Dropping E-type silhouettes out to 200m was no big deal. I know that pinging someone at 200m with a 9mm would only piss them off, but it was a comforting last-ditch kind of skill to have.


Okie John

Keep in mind that a USAF cop did drop an AK-47 wielding man at Fairchild AFB, WA with an M-9, at some 70-75 yards.

Massad Ayoob has discussed that incident in his articles, and may see this. He could add details. I think it took two shots. Not sure if the first hit the target. The cop was a bicyclist (sp?), and was the only armed response available when the nut began killing people.

In Korea, enemy padded clothing was sometimes resistant to penetration by .45 hardball. (9 mm and .357 rounds did penetrate.) That can be a factor in selecting a military pistol.

In the first Iraq war, a downed USAF pilot surrendered to an Iraqi man with an AK-47, just minutes before A-10's could arrive to cover his extraction. He lacked confidence in his M-9. I can't say just what the deal was, but I think had I been such a pilot, I'd have gone prone and tried to kill that Iraqi, or sent him packing! Range was about 90-100 yards. Most airmen simply have no respect for the handgun, because they are too high tech oriented, and never get to know the capabilities of the sidearm.

One doesn't need a Vulcan cannon or an M-882 bomb to kill people!

T-Star

 

[Ron H.]

Sir, I was also in the 1st MarDiv when the M9 hit the Fleet. This was about mid-'87 if I remember correctly. I was a rifleman, so never qualified with the thing or even fam-fired it, but the pistol carriers I knew were excited about the M9. They said it was easier to qualify with than the .45: better sights and less kick, but probably the biggest thing was just that the guns were new and tight. Our .45s were all old--literally made during WWII--and mostly clapped-out rattletraps.

I didn't hear anything about slide or locking block problems with the M9s then, but they were only in service for a few months before I got out. By the time I went back for GWI, those problems had been ID'd and fixed.

As others have noted, the M9 is really big for its cartridge and has a fat grip and very long trigger reach in double-action. I personally don't care for the safety on it (I'm a 1911 guy), but it's workable if you train with it. It wasn't a bad choice for a military sidearm at the time of its adoption, and still isn't a bad choice now.

JMHO, FWIW.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

FAMFIRE

Familiarization Firing.
Not qualification, just gives you the basic of the basics in a very short course.
When I was standing guard duty as an infantryman, it was part of guard class.

 

[Muley Gil]

I carried one in Kosovo and in Afghanistan.

I shot it well, but felt that it was waay too big and bulky for the 9mm cartridge.

Given my druthers, I'd rather have had: a 1911, a M625 Mt gun in .45 ACP, a Glock, or a High Power.

 

[Frailer]

Because it has a DA trigger for the first shot, it is not a big deal if the safety get swiped off. Many users never employ the safety, unless maybe while loading the weapon.

The big deal is the safety not staying where you put it, whether that be on or off. That's why I said I'd prefer it if the gun had no external safety at all. Given the choice between a Beretta 92 and a Glock or a Sig P226 the Beretta would come in third place for me.

I agree with those who recall the 1911s we had back in the 80s as well-worn rattletraps with poor sights, so the Beretta was an improvement.

 

[JayCeeNC]

I was the armorer for the US Army's SERE School at Ft. Rucker, AL.
M9 problems I saw on a weekly basis:
Slides cracked
Frames cracked
Locking blocks broken
Barrels split
Trigger springs broken
Slide release springs broken
Safety levers broken
Firing pins stuck in the forward position
Grip screw stripped out
Lower receiver parts falling out when the slide was removed

I own a Beretta 92, but only because I teach with it.
I've owned Glocks that I put more than 20,000 rounds through with no problems.
I carry a Glock or 1911 as a CCW gun.

 

[K.38]

I never carried it in combat only on guard and courier duty. I liked it better than the 1911 because they were wore plum out. I did prefer the S&W M15 as a sidearm but not with the issued ammo.

So for me I liked the M9. I tryed to buy one when I was stationed in Germany and Beretta had an active duty purchase program to buy one of their M9 pistols.

I only thing needed was a signature from the cop commander to approve the private ownership sale. Since he was half anti-gun and I was not one his "highly trained" cops he wouldn't sign off the form.

Anyway I have my own 92FS and enjoy the heck out of shooting it.

 

[ASA335]

My take...

I assisted in transition training from the M1911A1 to the M9 for both the 8th ID and the 1st AD.

As a pistol marksmanship instructor, the negative issues I saw dealt mainly with the size of the M9. The girth from back strap to trigger was just too much for folks with medium to small hands (at least half the Army or more). They had to misplace the M9 in their hand (getting the pad of their finger up to the trigger face) to be able to take DA shots. The firing tables at that time required that the first shot for each table be taken DA. It got to the point that I found myself telling some soldiers to just "blow your first DA shots and concentrate on your follow up SA shots" - a sad state of affairs in my mind. I never had to say this when I was training soldiers on the M1911A1.

I have a medium sized hand and although I could qualify expert with the M9 (not much of a compliment for me considering how little it took to get expert - just hit somewhere on the 25 meter silhouette with 39 out of 40 shots), but I could never achieve the same level of skill that I did with the M1911A1.

The M9's were newer, held more ammo and had better sights than the M1911A1's we had, but the M1911A1's fit more hand sizes and had single-action only trigger so I could train a higher percentage of soldiers to qualify "expert". Plus, it came chambered for what I consider the better FMJ cartridge for defensive use - the .45 acp. Note: For every one of the five pistol teams I qualified for, I used a standard, arms room issue, M1911A1 to do it. Loose and worn they might have been, but if you learned how to really shoot them, all of them that I used could keep their rounds in a center grouping (8 inches or less) on a military silhouette at 50 meters - I had two that fired 50 meter groups that I could cover with my hand.

I felt (and still do) that the military would have been better off buying new, up dated, M1911A2's (which is what I believe they would be called), and just spending more time and effort in training. Even though the training manual said I was to have five days to train soldiers in pistol marksmanship, it was rare for me to have more than a couple of hours to do so (other than when I was coaching a pistol team) - you can't train new shooters to be safe, comfortable and really proficient with any handgun in maybe a couple of hours.

I recall reading a report by the M9 failure investigation board that frame cracking and slide failures were attributed to the failed guns being used by some SF units using higher pressure 9mm's (designed for submachine gun use) in these M9's, and then some of these M9's being reissued to other units.

Peace,

 

[MTKTM]

I was a medic in the Army in '70-72 and thus was issued a 1911, the M9s were a decade-and-a-half in the future. My 45 was a real rattly thing, totally worn out, loose, it literally rattled in the holster as I walked. No joke. And it was not accurate.

Soon after the M9s came out I bought a 92FS and still have it. I was long since out of the Army so have definitely not carried it in any sort of military context. I have liked the gun, found it accurate and reliable. The only "jam" I've ever had with it was my fault, I let my thumb drift into the way of the rebounding slide and that caused a FTF......and a cut/bruised thumb. I agree, however, that the gun is too big for the caliber, and suspect it is now approaching obsolescence. I'd think that there are better 9x19s out there for the present-day military forces.

 

[safearm]

I carried a 4 inch M15 as an AF Security Specialist, then a 2 inch M15 as an aircrew member while on SAC alert. We started conversion to the M9 just before Desert Shield, in fact, the first guys to deploy to Saudi Arabia still carried M15s and converted in-country to the M9.
I never had a problem with the M9, but then again I carried a S&W M59 as a civilian police duty weapon (having converted from a issued S&W M15!). The safety was exactly the same and the grip width was the same, although the M9 had a curved backstrap, which I found more comfortable than the M59 straight backstrap.
I carried the M9 through the rest of my military career until I retired in 2008, including a year in Iraq (Mar 2004-Feb 2005). I never had a problem with it, either in peacetime qualification training (I was the M9 Top Gun in my squadron three years in a row) or in combat.
If I could choose ANY gun for military use, I'd go with a S&W M&P 9mm with manual safety/no magazine disconnect. To me it has all the right features; proprietary safety (user's choice), high capacity, virtually indestructable, good egronomics. The Glock 17 would be a close second, only because it doesn't have a manual safety and I don't personally like the grip angle. The 9mm, not because it's the best round (but it's not bad), but because it's the most available throughout the world.

 

[rimfired]

No experience with the 9. We sapped a lot of ammo and private guns back then

VietNam 70-71
I'll take a 1911-A1 anytime over a 9 or a 40.

 

[Harrison]

I carried a 1911 in Viet Nam and have confidence and respect the pistol and the round. If I had to go into a combat area tomorrow my first choice would be a 1911 in 45acp, my second choice would be a Glock in anything except 9mm. I have shot the M10, and do not like it, nor do I shoot is as well as a 1911 or Glock. The grip on the M10 just doesn't feel right. My last choice as a sidearm in a combat situation would be anything in 9mm hardball. The round is a wounder, not a stopper. It beats throwing rocks, but not by much. With a good HP bullet, the 9mm is a fine sidearm, but not witht the military stuff.