The Army Times is currently taking an opinion poll on the M9. I'd like to hear TFL members opinions on this pistol, (pistol not the cartridge.) I was in when we switched from the 1911 to the M9. I liked the M9 allot. I'm currently a M9 armorer. I think the service would be better off with a polymer pistol that requires less maintenance, less lube and maybe a better fit for more people, but the M9 does works well and I've found it to be a durable and very accurate pistol, (if properly maintained by the soldier and unit level armorer; ie replacing parts as needed,) What do you think.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Beretta 92FS/M9 poll
- Thread starter Noreaster
- Start date
sailskidrive
New member
It's fine
I think it's fine for its intended purpose as sidearms really do not get used that often on the battlefield. I've seen some M9s with pretty worn and scratched up finishes; while I believe polymer would hold up structurally to that kind of abuse but I think the exterior surfaces would get beat up quick.
If DoD moves to polymer they should have PlaySkool manufacture them, their stuff lasts forever!
I think it's fine for its intended purpose as sidearms really do not get used that often on the battlefield. I've seen some M9s with pretty worn and scratched up finishes; while I believe polymer would hold up structurally to that kind of abuse but I think the exterior surfaces would get beat up quick.
If DoD moves to polymer they should have PlaySkool manufacture them, their stuff lasts forever!
Will Beararms
New member
It is too big and clunky for a 15 round pistol. Why not have something that breaks down easily like a Glock instead of requiring a locking block? There are so many better designs out there now in Polymer.
First post, hello all
As a firearms enthusiast (definitely not an expert) and currently an active duty member of the US military, I really like the M9. In my experience it's a durable, reliable sidearm that requires relatively little training to strip and fire competently by most users. I've heard a lot of detractors lambasting it's weight as a major concern. I'm not out doing ruck-marches daily where every ounce counts, and it's primarily carried in a duty holster; so to me that weight is reassuring. I understand it had some teething issues when first introduced, but I struggle to grasp where the alarmingly negative opinions about the weapon come from. I'm sure there were folks in the military that yearned for colt revolvers when the 1911 was introduced, and waxed infinite about the revolvers superiority as people do know with M9 vs 1911 as a military sidearm. In short, I think it's a fine weapon that can continue to serve admirably as our primary sidearm.
As a firearms enthusiast (definitely not an expert) and currently an active duty member of the US military, I really like the M9. In my experience it's a durable, reliable sidearm that requires relatively little training to strip and fire competently by most users. I've heard a lot of detractors lambasting it's weight as a major concern. I'm not out doing ruck-marches daily where every ounce counts, and it's primarily carried in a duty holster; so to me that weight is reassuring. I understand it had some teething issues when first introduced, but I struggle to grasp where the alarmingly negative opinions about the weapon come from. I'm sure there were folks in the military that yearned for colt revolvers when the 1911 was introduced, and waxed infinite about the revolvers superiority as people do know with M9 vs 1911 as a military sidearm. In short, I think it's a fine weapon that can continue to serve admirably as our primary sidearm.
vikingextreme93
New member
Oddly enough I did not like the M9 when I was in the service, never had any problems but just did not care for it. Now 10 years later I have a 92 and love it i am even looking at getting another 92 or M9 variant. I just like the size and how solid they are and given the use they see in the military I do not see much advantage of a new weapon replacing something that already works well for its intended purpose.
Nakanokalronin
New member
They could go with the poly version, the PX4. I'm not sure how well the rotating barrel would do in sandy environments though.
I personally think the 92/M9/92A1/Elite series are fantastic firearms.
I personally think the 92/M9/92A1/Elite series are fantastic firearms.
i can not say the Beretta is the best pistol currently out there for the U.S. Military, but it was proven to be at the time it was selected for service.
Our military deserves the best, but we can not go around changing pistols every few years if the one we currently have meets the requirement. Most of us realize we are having some financial problems, and we need to pay down our National debt and not incur more.
So why would we change if the current pistol meets our needs?
I do not think the Glock qualified at the time of the source selection, and I do not think it would qualify today. Remember the statutory requirement of the Buy American Act. This is Congressionally mandated and not a choice of the Department of Defense.
Come back in fifty years if technology and the treat changes significantly.
Our military deserves the best, but we can not go around changing pistols every few years if the one we currently have meets the requirement. Most of us realize we are having some financial problems, and we need to pay down our National debt and not incur more.
So why would we change if the current pistol meets our needs?
I do not think the Glock qualified at the time of the source selection, and I do not think it would qualify today. Remember the statutory requirement of the Buy American Act. This is Congressionally mandated and not a choice of the Department of Defense.
Come back in fifty years if technology and the treat changes significantly.
Last edited:
Sgt Pepper
New member
Is there really a "best"? All of them have some trade off or compromise somewhere. Much of what is "best" for the armed forces are determined by factors that most of us would never even consider.
C0untZer0
Senior Member
Where is the poll ?
Thanks C0unt
In 22 years in the military I've only carried a 1911
I don't see anything that is enough better to justify spending millions of tax dollars on. At least not at this time.
I agree and would add I really enjoy the 92fs I have.
LockedBreech
New member
The Beretta 92FS/M9 is a fine pistol with a proven record very few pistols can match. I have to agree with previous posters about frugality. There are no pistols currently offering a significant tactical advantage over the M9 enough to warrant the massive expenditure of switching them out.
It's heavy, yes, but it's simple, reasonably high-capacity, and easy for most folks to shoot well.
It's heavy, yes, but it's simple, reasonably high-capacity, and easy for most folks to shoot well.
(pistol not the cartridge.)
The problem is it is not the pistol but the cartridge. My vote would be for the 15 round FNH FNP-45 Tactical, Much better pistol and cartridge.
Jim
http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/family.asp?fid=FNF062&gid=FNG001
I personally can't believe the 92 keeps getting contracts, not because it's bad, but because it's so huge. Bulky, too long a trigger reach for too many (including me), cumbersome safety. Glock 19 would be way better choice.
I guess that's why companies fight for those big contracts. Once you get one, there's alot of momentum in your favor.
I guess that's why companies fight for those big contracts. Once you get one, there's alot of momentum in your favor.
I personally can't believe the 92 keeps getting contracts, not because it's bad, but because it's so huge. Bulky, too long a trigger reach for too many (including me), cumbersome safety. Glock 19 would be way better choice.
I guess that's why companies fight for those big contracts. Once you get one, there's alot of momentum in your favor.
Bwahaha. The M9 is only just a smidgen longer than the G17. If it has perceived grip and reach problems, so too would the goofy ergonomics of the G19.
As for the safety, visions of all those cop NDs would dance through the nightmares of the procurement officers at the Pentagon. They might not care if elements of the snake eating Army play with Glocks, but there is no way in Hell the Big Army is ever going to take a pistol that only sports a brake in the middle of it's trigger. Even if Glock went and offered up G19 pistols with a manual safety, having the switch suitable for right handed operation only doesn't cut it anymore.
If there are better polymer designs than what the M9 offers these days, there are better and more modern polymer designs available these days than what Glock has had on offer for seemingly forever.
Uh Huh.
I said Glock 19, not 17. Much more compact, same capacity as the 92. And yes, much better fit for most hands.
If half the police have Glocks, why couldn't the military? Are soldiers that much dumber than cops?
And how could the 1911 be acceptable all those years? Police forces scared of that, but accept Glocks easily.
Doesn't have to be a Glock. Pick another modern polymer design that has been tested in tough conditions.
If the playing field were level, all starting from scratch, would the 92 even be considered today? Don't think so.
I said Glock 19, not 17. Much more compact, same capacity as the 92. And yes, much better fit for most hands.
If half the police have Glocks, why couldn't the military? Are soldiers that much dumber than cops?
And how could the 1911 be acceptable all those years? Police forces scared of that, but accept Glocks easily.
Doesn't have to be a Glock. Pick another modern polymer design that has been tested in tough conditions.
If the playing field were level, all starting from scratch, would the 92 even be considered today? Don't think so.
I think I know of no one that has used a 92/M9 for some time and hasn't liked it. Bulky and heavy?. Yes. But that's one of the reasons why it is accurate, reliable and controllable in double taps. My only complaint about it is that the grip is wide, which is OK for my hands, but a bit short. The PX4 is better suited in this sense.
Micahweeks
New member
I don't care for the M9. It offers too little for a gun its size, IMO. 15 shots when smaller guns have more at lower price points with comparable reliability? I don't see how it keeps getting contracts. I would think Glock would easily crush the M9 in cost per unit.
The M9/92 isn't a bad gun. It's just not as much for my money as other options. As a politician (yes, I know politicians don't know guns, but I do), I would choose something else.
The M9/92 isn't a bad gun. It's just not as much for my money as other options. As a politician (yes, I know politicians don't know guns, but I do), I would choose something else.