Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Posted: 1/13/2002 2:58:21 PM EDT
Why did the military go from .45acp colt pistol to a 9mm M9 berretta? I guess one reason would be easier to handle for everyone, a more univeral gun, different stature men and women?
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 3:04:53 PM EDT
The transition started in 1985. As to the rest of your question, it's basically a holy war. I believe the OFFICIAL reason was for logistical reasons (i.e. all NATO countries use 9MM Luger.)
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 4:24:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zak:
The transition started in 1985. As to the rest of your question, it's basically a holy war. I believe the OFFICIAL reason was for logistical reasons (i.e. all NATO countries use 9MM Luger.)

It is now a "politically correct" world.......fact is....there is no std. issue handgun for regular troops....only m16.....spec-ops pretty much uses what they want...a lot of 45`s......some high-tech nines....the rest is simply a matter of "POLITICS".....
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 4:31:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlackandGreen:

Originally Posted By Zak:
The transition started in 1985. As to the rest of your question, it's basically a holy war. I believe the OFFICIAL reason was for logistical reasons (i.e. all NATO countries use 9MM Luger.)

It is now a "politically correct" world.......fact is....there is no std. issue handgun for regular troops....only m16.....spec-ops pretty much uses what they want...a lot of 45`s......some high-tech nines....the rest is simply a matter of "POLITICS".....



Huh? Where a handgun is issues, the M9 is, in fact, the "standard issue." Other traditional units and positions, like CID, get the M11 (SIG P228). SF and some marine units can pick what they want, but they are in the vast minority (in terms of numbers) Like it or not, the M9 is the "official" sidearm of the US military.
Link Posted: 1/14/2002 11:39:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
Why did the military go from .45acp colt pistol to a 9mm M9 berretta?



The "official" version is they wanted to fall in line with the NATO spec for handgun caliber: 9mm. That makes resupply a bit easier on the front. (The US Army has a long history of multiple calibers in the 1800s in handguns that were a bitch to keep supplied.)
The "unofficial" version, which I believe, is that the Beretta selection came around not too long before the contract renewal with Italy for US military bases was due. (Who won the war, anyway?)
Granted, Beretta was the better gun in the military trials by far based on what was reported at the time. I own a 92FS & was surprised at its accuracy. But I still carry a 45acp! >evil grin<
Link Posted: 1/14/2002 12:20:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2002 12:23:57 PM EDT by imposter]
I think there were two primary concerns. First, they wanted a DA pistol for safety reasons. Military pistols are in the hands of far too many poorly trained adolescents, and it was thought a DA pistol would produce less accidents. In a study in the 70s, when the army first started kicking around replacing the 1911, it was found that 1911s had killed more GIs than enemy soldiers.

Second reason: NATO standardization.

Also, the 1911s still in service were reaching the end of their service life and the 9mm performed very well in penetration tests. Reliability was excellent also, much better than a stock 1911. Both the Beretta and SIG met the military requirements, but Beretta got the contract because it was significantly cheaper.
Link Posted: 1/14/2002 12:23:48 PM EDT
Beretta was, like every contractor, the low bidder. Their competition was the SIG P226, which was a bit more expensive (and the political part may be true, too). Both pistols passed all the torture tests. I haven't shot the 226, but the 220 (.45 ACP) impressed me as a superior weapon to the Beretta 92fs, caliber aside. If I had to carry an aluminum-framed, hi-cap, DA/SA 9mm auto, it would be the SIG. It's the choice of the SEALs - that should tell you something.

Unfortunately the M9 is not an easier pistol to shoot than the M1911A1. As a former pistol instructor I don't believe any claims to better qualification rates. It's not any better adapted to women or small men, because the single-stack M1911A1 will simply fit a wider variety of hand sizes than the double-stack M9. The 1911 has a better grip, better-designed controls, and most importantly, a better trigger. I also believe that, handled properly, it's every bit as safe as an M9. In fact, while in Condition 1 (cocked & locked), the 1911 has more safeties engaged and yet is quicker to get into action than the M9. The first shot will be quicker and more accurate.

I could go on and on, but frankly I doubt anyone here wants to hear me anymore.

But I have to add, Marine Force Recon still uses the M1911A1!!!
Link Posted: 1/14/2002 1:52:14 PM EDT
1.Because the 1911A1's were purchased in WWII and were worn out.
2.Because all the other NATO countries were using 9mickeymouse.
3. Because they were STUPID

Long Live the 1911 !
Link Posted: 1/14/2002 2:23:35 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 1/14/2002 2:30:22 PM EDT
One fact that you brought up really rings a bell in my mind that in the civilian world everyone has pistols and that is somes main line of defense but in the military no one wants to rely on a pistol in combat everyone wants a rifle.
Link Posted: 1/14/2002 10:20:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By McNamara:
Unfortunately the M9 is not an easier pistol to shoot than the M1911A1. As a former pistol instructor I don't believe any claims to better qualification rates. It's not any better adapted to women or small men, because the single-stack M1911A1 will simply fit a wider variety of hand sizes than the double-stack M9.



That's funny. A couple of nights ago I was reading an old edition of American Rifleman, and an "advantage" cited for the M-9 was ease of use for women with small hands.

You would think that the American Rifleman staff would know that the M-9 had a fatter grip than the 1911.

Oh well.
Link Posted: 1/15/2002 3:58:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By BlackandGreen:

Originally Posted By Zak:
The transition started in 1985. As to the rest of your question, it's basically a holy war. I believe the OFFICIAL reason was for logistical reasons (i.e. all NATO countries use 9MM Luger.)

It is now a "politically correct" world.......fact is....there is no std. issue handgun for regular troops....only m16.....spec-ops pretty much uses what they want...a lot of 45`s......some high-tech nines....the rest is simply a matter of "POLITICS".....



Huh? Where a handgun is issues, the M9 is, in fact, the "standard issue." Other traditional units and positions, like CID, get the M11 (SIG P228). SF and some marine units can pick what they want, but they are in the vast minority (in terms of numbers) Like it or not, the M9 is the "official" sidearm of the US military.

We meant the same thing......my poor wording again.........you say "where" a handgun is issued.......I said it is not std practice to issue sidearms to the troops......mainly officers.......(combat different I`m sure)...
Link Posted: 1/15/2002 6:31:12 AM EDT
The switch to 9mm dates back to the mid-1950's when the US forced NATO to accept the new T65 round for service rifles (now known as the 7.62x51 or 7.62 NATO). The Brits were championing a 260 rifle round, so a compromise was reached where the 7.62 became the standard rifle round and 9mm became the standard pistol round. It just took us an additional 30 years to "use up" our stockpile of WWII vintage 1911A1s.
Link Posted: 1/15/2002 6:34:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BlackandGreen:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By BlackandGreen:

Originally Posted By Zak:
The transition started in 1985. As to the rest of your question, it's basically a holy war. I believe the OFFICIAL reason was for logistical reasons (i.e. all NATO countries use 9MM Luger.)

It is now a "politically correct" world.......fact is....there is no std. issue handgun for regular troops....only m16.....spec-ops pretty much uses what they want...a lot of 45`s......some high-tech nines....the rest is simply a matter of "POLITICS".....



Huh? Where a handgun is issues, the M9 is, in fact, the "standard issue." Other traditional units and positions, like CID, get the M11 (SIG P228). SF and some marine units can pick what they want, but they are in the vast minority (in terms of numbers) Like it or not, the M9 is the "official" sidearm of the US military.

We meant the same thing......my poor wording again.........you say "where" a handgun is issued.......I said it is not std practice to issue sidearms to the troops......mainly officers.......(combat different I`m sure)...



Got it. For a minute there, I was concerned.
Top Top