I've had the pleasure of carrying the M1911A1, the M-10 S&W .38, and the M9 in the US Army. As far as the Army goes, pistol training is pretty much non-existant except for a minority. I recieved a total of one class on the M1911A1, and one class on the M9. I recieved no training whatsoever on the revolver. Other than that, training consisted of going to the range one day and shooting about 50 rds out of it. That was about once a year. I would venture to say that my experience was not unique for most pistol carriers in the Army. The fact is that sidearms aren't quite as emphisized in the military as it is in the civillian world. We carried pistols simply because we were unable to carry rifles. In real combat, I would have chosen a rifle over any pistol.
That out of the way, the Army hadn't bought any new M1911A1s since WWII, so they were pretty worn out. My issue one was ragged out pretty hard. It still worked fine, and I could shoot it fine, but it didn't shoot anywhere near as tight as my personally owned Remington-Rand M1911A1.
They also didn't have anywhere near enough of them. Pistol shortages became so bad that .38s were bought and issued for many years to units that really didn't need them for direct combat. In Aviation we had .38s. The story was that you could shoot shotshells, or whatever, and that there was no ejecting brass, and yada, yada, but the reality was the Army was so short of pistols it was just looking for reasons to get Congress to fund the purchases. I figured out the reasons the Army buys things is to provide money to contractors, and they come up with reasons to sell the ideas to Congress that have no basis in fact.
But I digress. The .38 shot great, but the issue .38spec was something like a 147gr FMJ at 800fps. I mean it was a pretty aniemic round. Everybody was bitching about the Army going to the "weak" 9mm, but were ignorant of the fact that thousands of troops were armed with a far more inferior handgun and cartridge already.
When I was issued the M9 I was a happy clam. I mean it was the first and only NEW IN THE BOX weapon I had ever been issued. It shot great, was easy to use, easy to teach people to use, and was safe enough for most of the morons that carry the thing. It was an alright gun. The fact that it was new helped alot too. 6 rds of .38spec FMJ vs 15 9mm? Not a hard choice.
What it did for us logistically was eliminate two other rounds and three other pistols (there were Rugers and S&W revolvers in service). That's a big logistical improvement in the grand scheme of things where the Army operates. It brought in new pistols, where we hadn't bought any for years. It took advantage of technology that had develpoed since 1911.
In the big scheme of things, it really doesn't matter what they bought. They just needed to buy something badly, and they needed to buy something that they wouldn't have to replace ten years later down the road. All the facts/stories of the Beretta Vs Sig are just political. Either one would have worked for what we needed.
As far as the shooters being able to handle the M9 better than the M1911A1, I'm not convinced of that. Training was so absent that it didn't matter what you had, you could either shoot or not.
Ross