What's wrong with the M9?
- Thread starter Saab1911
- Start date
How many rounds had they put through those guns when the locking block broke? I mean, you can't drive a car for 100,000 miles without doing a brake job now and then. Replacing a locking block takes about 30 seconds, and they only cost a few bucks. People replacing recoil springs every 5000 rounds or so.
For me, the locking block isn't an issue.
For me, the locking block isn't an issue.
Blah Blah lol, each and every one of us who shoot a 1911 change recoil springs about every 3000 rounds, 1000 to 1500 rounds if its an aluminum framed weapon. It would be just as easy to change out the block on an M9 every 15k rounds, or, during the inspection that is mandatory during EACH cleaning, when needed.
I have 67 1911's now, and only 1 is an aluminum framed weapon, a Springfield LWT Operators.
I now have 7 Beretta 92FS's and 1 M9A1.
I have the appropriate spare parts kit for both platforms, which everyone should have.
My one police trade in 92FS now has 8400 rounds from ME with no signs of stress or strain, I have NO idea how many rounds the PD put in, but if they run true to form in these days of tight budgets, I'm figuring maybe 2000 max.
I have 67 1911's now, and only 1 is an aluminum framed weapon, a Springfield LWT Operators.
I now have 7 Beretta 92FS's and 1 M9A1.
I have the appropriate spare parts kit for both platforms, which everyone should have.
My one police trade in 92FS now has 8400 rounds from ME with no signs of stress or strain, I have NO idea how many rounds the PD put in, but if they run true to form in these days of tight budgets, I'm figuring maybe 2000 max.
45_Shooter
New member
A weak recoil spring, or even a worn out extractor will cause a jam every now and then, but largely keep functioning. A broken locking block will render the weapon inoperable. I think that's a significant difference, especially if you need the gun NOW and don't happen to have a locking block on hand.
Well, after 50-80 years in the service of the military, there's estimates of over 500k on some frames (although I don't have a reference handy). The Marine Corps was still rebuilding some of the originals for use in the latest Iraq war, making it possible to have an issue weapon nearing 100 years old.
I kinda doubt they were shooting anything but full power ammo
The 300k number was from a Glock durability test awhile back. I think it was even in advertisements.
Aluminum is a poor structual material, hence the reduced service life (if they lasted longer on a regular basis I'm sure Beretta would be the first to say it). Under cyclical loading, it cycles to complete failure (read: fracture) following a parabolic curve.
Steel follows a similar curve to a point, at which work hardening (possible due to iron's unique grain structure) takes over and prevents further weakening. Unless the part is flawed, steel will last until friction wears the part into the realm of unserviceable, but properly designed for the loads and manufactured correctly it should never fail from fracture.
Polymer is similar except instead of work hardening it actually flexes without fatigue. Weathering and friction will degrade a polymer frame but the cyclical loading of the weapon should not cause it.
This is why steel and polymer guns have vastly improved service lives over their counterparts, and why many dislike aluminum frames for a weapon destined for high round counts. You will never see average durability of an aluminum gun be similar to a steel or polymer gun, assuming similar size and functioning.
ok, Yes, that old 1911 is unreliable. most of them were purchased and put in service during WWII and they were phased out of service starting in the 1980's What a POS! only lasted 40 years. Of course that's only when MOST of them were purchased.
Here's hoping the M9 has that much life.
Oh, and the SIG P226 is indeed smaller through the grip than the Beretta.
I'm sure somebody owns both and can post side by side pics.
Here's hoping the M9 has that much life.
Oh, and the SIG P226 is indeed smaller through the grip than the Beretta.
I'm sure somebody owns both and can post side by side pics.
The Magazines!
Issued magazines are horrible in a sandy environment. 10 minutes after cleaning my mags and walking around in the dust, the mags would fail to feed once again and I would be able to literally pour the rounds out.
OTH, my M16 mags feed reliably with little maintenance.
The other thing is the whole ergonomics of the pistol. I have small hands and cannot get a good grip. If on the off chance I do get a decent grip, I have to completely break it in order to hit the mag release. I finally gave up on that and started setting my mag release up on the trigger finger side as it was easier. I have been issued an M9 for the last 6 years and have shot in the neighborhood of 5000 rounds out of it(2000 in one week at HRP, where I had one locking block failure and saw 3 others) yet still cannot get the pistol to feel comfortable in my hands.
Give me a pistol that is comfortable and has reliable mags over an M9 any day.
Issued magazines are horrible in a sandy environment. 10 minutes after cleaning my mags and walking around in the dust, the mags would fail to feed once again and I would be able to literally pour the rounds out.
OTH, my M16 mags feed reliably with little maintenance.
The other thing is the whole ergonomics of the pistol. I have small hands and cannot get a good grip. If on the off chance I do get a decent grip, I have to completely break it in order to hit the mag release. I finally gave up on that and started setting my mag release up on the trigger finger side as it was easier. I have been issued an M9 for the last 6 years and have shot in the neighborhood of 5000 rounds out of it(2000 in one week at HRP, where I had one locking block failure and saw 3 others) yet still cannot get the pistol to feel comfortable in my hands.
Give me a pistol that is comfortable and has reliable mags over an M9 any day.
That goes to what I've always said, if you inspect each piece during each cleaning, then you'll never have a locking block break. I was trained to take down each weapon, inspect each individual piece, and replace as needed. Between that, and a proper range log, you'll know how many rounds each piece has on it, thereby allowing proper maintenance.
I've not had problems with the triggers, although I realize that's going to vary from gun to gun and from shooter to shooter.
On the other hand, I think I can speak to the accuracy issue conclusively. A well-maintained Beretta 92 series pistol is quite accurate. The groups below were fired with three different 92 pistols I've owned over the years.
50 foot groups
25 yard groups
Dog Confetti
New member
The locking blocks that broke on me were both issue weapons...I'm sure they had been around for a while, but I'm also pretty sure they were not "the old kind". A pistol in the military can look like crap on the outside but generally has relatively few rounds put through it...and I'd be surprised if either of the ones I had problems with had more than 10k through them. Sure it's easy to change out a locking block, but guess what...both of mine failed during firing so I guess the whole PM argument falls short...I don't have a kit full of M9 parts that I run around with ready to swap out when the need arises.
Unless you looked at the locking blocks and can tell the difference between the generations I don't understand what could possibly make you "pretty sure" one way or the other. And if you did & can, I don't understand why you're not positive whether they were or not.
I tend to think they weren't the new style for the simple reason that failures with the new blocks seem to be very rare.
Even with the old style blocks, actual failures while shooting should be rare in properly maintained pistols because the locks tend to crack before they break outright. The cracks are pretty obvious under reasonably careful inspection. In addition, the accuracy of a pistol with a cracked locking block tends to degrade giving the user a hint that something is amiss.
...and in fact they're still in use today among forces who use a sidearm as a primary weapon but are constrained by the GC to ball ammo. Not the point.
"Durable" <> "reliable".
Granted, a properly maintained M1911 will likely outlast a properly maintained M9, but we all know that it doesn't achieve the MTBF of an M9 either.
For most service use, the overriding criteria is that it's expected to take some *neglect* (not abuse) but isn't relied upon to be a primary weapon. When it's called upon, it has to work. The M9 is better in this regard.
I also notice a difference between the width of a Beretta and a SIG. It's fairly minor but probably more noticeable to people with smaller mitts than mine.
Dog Confetti
New member
Locking block failures in multiple weapons issued by different units in the last 3 years leads me to beileve that: 1) I have bad luck, 2) the military didn't bother upgrading their weapons, or 3) Beretta's "fix" was inadequate.
And no, you can't always see the cracks...I also never noticed any degraded accuracy.
And no, you can't always see the cracks...I also never noticed any degraded accuracy.
I guess most of the locking blocks the military is using is from existing stock that was bought over a decade ago in bulk. Here's a link which has some pictures at the bottom of my Beretta's locking block and more at the top of the next page, it's the current type with the TiNi gold finish
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218014&page=3
And check out my comments on post number 69
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218014&page=3
And check out my comments on post number 69