User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:40:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Considering what the vast majority of the military use a handgun for you really aren't all that crazy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
you might think im a dumbass for suggesting this but. i think the ideal handgun for the general military would be a ruger p95 with a decocker. you can say what you want, but. 1. it would be 100% reliable. 2. be rugged as fuck.. about indestructable 3. be cheap as hell. ) prob $200-$300 each) special forces might need something more special... but for everyone else i dont see the downside. Considering what the vast majority of the military use a handgun for you really aren't all that crazy. Sits in a holster just fine... check. I'll say this much about the M9/92 though, they're sweet shooters. Which makes shooting them once every six months that much nicer. 
I love my own M9 and will be kicking doors down for an M9A3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:40:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They could have easily made the slide mounted safety/decocker just a decocker. I don't think the m9 is the best option but not to evaluate it is just stupid. Sounds like it was an "unsolicited proposal". Army is under no obligation to evaluate them. Especially when the Rfp hadn't been posted yet. How to propose your pistol and Army's needs will be spelled out in L&M of the RFP. Beretta was just trying to prevent it from being solicited in the first place, because they have an IDIQ contract with room to order 80k more pistols at Army's discretion. Sounds like the Army isn't going to be doing more orders on the IDIQ. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:41:15 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IT does seem tho the armys biggest complaint is the slide mounted safety which beretta DIDN'T address so maybe we will see another revision with a frame mounted safety which would be very  Oh, shit!!! Here we go a-gain! "If you  understood how the Beretta works and how it's supposed to be used you would know that it's NOT a safety...it's just a decocker and it's just as safe to carry with the safety, er, ah, decocker off as any other weapon." Paraphrased from one of the recent Beretta versus anything else threads.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:41:38 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's because big Army passes M9s around to different people and it gets treated like a drunk stripper in the barracks. Then after a few years you get a beat to hell pos pistol that desperately needs to be rebuilt or replaced, but since the commander and his staff get pencil whipped at the range, nobody cares enough to do it. Frankly, IMO, the way the Army handles pistol issue and operator/armorer maintaince is criminal. Whatever your flavor of choice, glock, S&W, etc; if they are constantly mistreated and abused by the Army like the M9 is, you're going to end up with racks of fucked up pistols that barely shoot straight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is nothing wrong the current Beretta big army says you're wrong. Although I do think this will turn into a big dog and pony show of bids and they will stick with the beretta in the end due to "budget concerns" like the last 3 times it was up for re consideration. That's because big Army passes M9s around to different people and it gets treated like a drunk stripper in the barracks. Then after a few years you get a beat to hell pos pistol that desperately needs to be rebuilt or replaced, but since the commander and his staff get pencil whipped at the range, nobody cares enough to do it. Frankly, IMO, the way the Army handles pistol issue and operator/armorer maintaince is criminal. Whatever your flavor of choice, glock, S&W, etc; if they are constantly mistreated and abused by the Army like the M9 is, you're going to end up with racks of fucked up pistols that barely shoot straight. Yepppp. And then they wonder why their M9 sucks. It's the same reason the M16, 249, M2 and MK19 are generally hated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:41:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit there isn't. The safety is in a retarded position. We had to leave out pistol chambers empty when outside the wire because they would routinely get moved from safe to fire through the normal duties of helicopter crewmembers. Whats the fucking point of a safety if you don't know what position it will be in when you reach for it in a need? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought it allowed for decipher only. Bullshit there isn't. The safety is in a retarded position. We had to leave out pistol chambers empty when outside the wire because they would routinely get moved from safe to fire through the normal duties of helicopter crewmembers. Whats the fucking point of a safety if you don't know what position it will be in when you reach for it in a need? Why empty? It's a DA/SA. In a holster it's perfectly fine to leave it on fire. I was trained by an instructor here to do so, in fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:41:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would honestly (aside from size) address most of my issues with the M9. If it's got to have a safety, let it be frame mounted and not slide! edit Oh, and no decocker unless it's a separate lever. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IT does seem tho the armys biggest complaint is the slide mounted safety which beretta DIDN'T address so maybe we will see another revision with a frame mounted safety which would be very That would honestly (aside from size) address most of my issues with the M9. If it's got to have a safety, let it be frame mounted and not slide! edit Oh, and no decocker unless it's a separate lever. The design could easily be configured for a frame mounted safety/ decocker, like the Taurus uses. It's fairly simple to use, could be put on safe while still cocked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:42:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sweeping the safety on the M9 as part of the draw has always been easy as hell to me. Maybe because I only really shoot glocks otherwise, I dunno. I've just never understood the bitching about it. Not as issued, but one thing they mentioned was that it was "readily convertible" to G model by an armorer. I assume that's their speak for "would take an arfcommer ten minutes". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does everyone hate the slide mounted safety?? I barely notice it. Because we have opposable thumbs that only really bend in one direction... Sweeping the safety on the M9 as part of the draw has always been easy as hell to me. Maybe because I only really shoot glocks otherwise, I dunno. I've just never understood the bitching about it. Quoted:
I think the M9A3 is a decock only. Not as issued, but one thing they mentioned was that it was "readily convertible" to G model by an armorer. I assume that's their speak for "would take an arfcommer ten minutes". This. If you struggle with the safety on the M9, you have no business handling firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:43:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sits in a holster just fine... check. I'll say this much about the M9/92 though, they're sweet shooters. Which makes shooting them once every six months that much nicer.
I love my own M9 and will be kicking doors down for an M9A3. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
you might think im a dumbass for suggesting this but. i think the ideal handgun for the general military would be a ruger p95 with a decocker. you can say what you want, but. 1. it would be 100% reliable. 2. be rugged as fuck.. about indestructable 3. be cheap as hell. ) prob $200-$300 each) special forces might need something more special... but for everyone else i dont see the downside. Considering what the vast majority of the military use a handgun for you really aren't all that crazy. Sits in a holster just fine... check. I'll say this much about the M9/92 though, they're sweet shooters. Which makes shooting them once every six months that much nicer.
I love my own M9 and will be kicking doors down for an M9A3. I am on the waiting list for a Wilson Combat 92G Brigadier. I already have a pieced together Vertec with a FDE frame and a black Brigadier slide or I would probably be wanting an A3 as well. 
I have quite a bit of time behind a Beretta over the years and am very comfortable with just about any variant of the 92/96 series. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:46:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good. Too many parts to do the same job a gun with lesser parts could do. This. The Beretta's frame is way too large for the caliber and role. The number of moving parts and the inability of the organization to provide the level of training just to clean it is reason enough to can that pistol. The controls are counter-intuitive for entry-level soldiers and officers, who will receive ZERO quality pistol instruction, and I mean ZERO. The only reason that pistol was adopted had nothing to do with its features. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:48:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: you might think im a dumbass for suggesting this but. i think the ideal handgun for the general military would be a ruger p95 with a decocker. it might be a bulky handgun... but thats not a issue when its carried on a web belt..you can say what you want, but. 1. it would be 100% reliable. 2. be rugged as fuck.. about indestructable 3. be cheap as hell. ) prob $200-$300 each) 4. american made special forces might need something more special... but for everyone else i dont see the downside. and it would save a fuck load of money. probably be at least 1/3 the price of anything else they choose from. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp58/buck19delta/34zj21g_zpsb5d03788.jpg lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:49:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should take a look at Taurus then. The PT92 gets good reviews here just like the Colt Rail Gun. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I found a used one at a local gs for 220 I cant decide to grab it or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:50:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like it was an "unsolicited proposal". Army is under no obligation to evaluate them. Especially when the Rfp hadn't been posted yet. How to propose your pistol and Army's needs will be spelled out in L&M of the RFP. Beretta was just trying to prevent it from being solicited in the first place, because they have an IDIQ contract with room to order 80k more pistols at Army's discretion. Sounds like the Army isn't going to be doing more orders on the IDIQ. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They could have easily made the slide mounted safety/decocker just a decocker. I don't think the m9 is the best option but not to evaluate it is just stupid. Sounds like it was an "unsolicited proposal". Army is under no obligation to evaluate them. Especially when the Rfp hadn't been posted yet. How to propose your pistol and Army's needs will be spelled out in L&M of the RFP. Beretta was just trying to prevent it from being solicited in the first place, because they have an IDIQ contract with room to order 80k more pistols at Army's discretion. Sounds like the Army isn't going to be doing more orders on the IDIQ. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Just the fact that there is a pending RFP, makes any related unsolicited proposals invalid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:53:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why empty? It's a DA/SA. In a holster it's perfectly fine to leave it on fire. I was trained by an instructor here to do so, in fact. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought it allowed for decipher only. Bullshit there isn't. The safety is in a retarded position. We had to leave out pistol chambers empty when outside the wire because they would routinely get moved from safe to fire through the normal duties of helicopter crewmembers. Whats the fucking point of a safety if you don't know what position it will be in when you reach for it in a need? Why empty? It's a DA/SA. In a holster it's perfectly fine to leave it on fire. I was trained by an instructor here to do so, in fact. They also had a nasty habit of cocking themselves in the course of duties (sling load ops for one). Getting off the floor of a helicopter after a sling load and seeing your chest mounted pistol is cocked and off safe is not a good feeling. My civy cary gun is a XDS, and I feel safe with a no safety/striker fired weapon for rough work. I just think the M9 is a much too heavy, ergonomically retarded weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:53:28 PM EDT
[#14]
M1911A1 FTW!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 2:58:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopes they choose a 10mm.  Most soldiers can't shoot 9mm well let alone 45 ACP (which is why I sort of wish the Army would just adopt the M45 but ultimately that would be a bad thing for the Army overall). 10mm would be a whole 'nother thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:01:05 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. The Beretta's frame is way too large for the caliber and role. The number of moving parts and the inability of the organization to provide the level of training just to clean it is reason enough to can that pistol. The controls are counter-intuitive for entry-level soldiers and officers, who will receive ZERO quality pistol instruction, and I mean ZERO. The only reason that pistol was adopted had nothing to do with its features. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good. Too many parts to do the same job a gun with lesser parts could do. This. The Beretta's frame is way too large for the caliber and role. The number of moving parts and the inability of the organization to provide the level of training just to clean it is reason enough to can that pistol. The controls are counter-intuitive for entry-level soldiers and officers, who will receive ZERO quality pistol instruction, and I mean ZERO. The only reason that pistol was adopted had nothing to do with its features. This man speaks truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:02:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M1911A1 FTW!!
Oh no he din'nt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:03:32 PM EDT
[#18]
Deagle 50 would be bad ass for the US Army
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:04:57 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There will not be a new general issue pistol for decades. This is just another circle jerk for some retard to use as a bullet point for his/her next promotion. I predict wider issue of SIG M11-A1 .  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:07:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. If you struggle with the safety on the M9, you have no business handling firearms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does everyone hate the slide mounted safety?? I barely notice it. Because we have opposable thumbs that only really bend in one direction... Sweeping the safety on the M9 as part of the draw has always been easy as hell to me. Maybe because I only really shoot glocks otherwise, I dunno. I've just never understood the bitching about it. Quoted:
I think the M9A3 is a decock only. Not as issued, but one thing they mentioned was that it was "readily convertible" to G model by an armorer. I assume that's their speak for "would take an arfcommer ten minutes". This. If you struggle with the safety on the M9, you have no business handling firearms. I guess that's always been my take on it. Sure there are better pistols out there but the m9 is fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:12:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IT does seem tho the armys biggest complaint is the slide mounted safety which beretta DIDN'T address so maybe we will see another revision with a frame mounted safety which would be very Does anyone actually prefer a slide mounted safety to a frame safety? Seriously. ETA: some people don't mind it, but do they actually PREFER it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:12:11 PM EDT
[#22]
Guarantee that whatever is selected will have to have SECOND STRIKE capability.
The chances of an out-of-battery light-strike when you are duking it out hand-to-hand with some turd are significant. Much to be said for only having to stroke the trigger again to regain the initiative. No single-action or striker-fired guns will be selected. Beretta's design is still in it. Glock (and many, many others) slightly out-of-battery will allow the striker or hammer to fall, and produce only this result. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:13:46 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Browning Hi-Power. Because reasons. The British Army issued the BHP for decades, and I love the BHP as much as the next guy, but they have recently replaced their BHPs with Glock 17s. For a .mil sidearm their decision was a good one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:17:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was thinking the same thing Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They had to reject it since Beretta rejected a gun control shithole next to the seat of power, and decided to relocate to the "patron State of shootin' stuff". I was thinking the same thing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:22:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guarantee that whatever is selected will have to have SECOND STRIKE capability. The chances of an out-of-battery light-strike when you are duking it out hand-to-hand with some turd are significant. Much to be said for only having to stroke the trigger again to regain the initiative. No single-action or striker-fired guns will be selected. Beretta's design is still in it. Glock (and many, many others) slightly out-of-battery will allow the striker or hammer to fall, and produce only this result. http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/ammunition/deesduds_zps39baff85.jpg Negative. The Army is not preparing its soldiers for combat with some turdbag in a police car. They aren't even conducting formal pistol training for the majority of people that carry sidearms, and probably never will, because it doesn't matter in the long run. Also, Glocks and every other striker-fired handgun don't have hammers, which is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:22:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should at least evaluate it. Do you know how much a full evaluation costs? With the limitations and weight of the weapon system, and knowing how many better options are out there, I (as a taxpayer) am glad they were able to move past this money waisting step and go straight to open evaluation of the entire field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:23:06 PM EDT
[#27]
OK let's be real. Having shot thousands and thousands of rounds though tons of various sidearms I will say without a doubt that the m9/92 is by far the nicest feeling and shooting handgun I could wish for. Its heavy, steel frame feels mechanical. The sights are really nice. If kept clean it is really really reliable. In fact, I've never even seen one jam. Ever. 2" groups at 60 feet all day out of that 4.9" barrel. You could beat someone to death with it if you ran out of ammo and you can get 17 round mags. If you wanna get rid of that for some polymer framed shitty triggered glock or s&w have fun with that. The only reason why Signs and H&K cost so much is the name. I still prefer my Berretta over any sidearm aside from maybe a USP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:25:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you might think im a dumbass for suggesting this but. i think the ideal handgun for the general military would be a ruger p95 with a decocker. it might be a bulky handgun... but thats not a issue when its carried on a web belt..you can say what you want, but. 1. it would be 100% reliable. 2. be rugged as fuck.. about indestructable 3. be cheap as hell. ) prob $200-$300 each) 4. american made special forces might need something more special... but for everyone else i dont see the downside. and it would save a fuck load of money. probably be at least 1/3 the price of anything else they choose from. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp58/buck19delta/34zj21g_zpsb5d03788.jpg Okay, whoa, let's not get crazy here...! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:25:20 PM EDT
[#29]
Good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:27:17 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The design could easily be configured for a frame mounted safety/ decocker, like the Taurus uses. It's fairly simple to use, could be put on safe while still cocked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IT does seem tho the armys biggest complaint is the slide mounted safety which beretta DIDN'T address so maybe we will see another revision with a frame mounted safety which would be very That would honestly (aside from size) address most of my issues with the M9. If it's got to have a safety, let it be frame mounted and not slide! edit Oh, and no decocker unless it's a separate lever. The design could easily be configured for a frame mounted safety/ decocker, like the Taurus uses. It's fairly simple to use, could be put on safe while still cocked. I don't want the combo safety/decocker though. I shoot 1911 style - downward pressure on the thumb safety. On a frame decocker/safety (like HK and FNuse) his causes a trigger pull in the dozens of pound range due to me constantly decocking it while pulling the trigger.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:28:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I found a used one at a local gs for 220 I cant decide to grab it or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They should take a look at Taurus then. The PT92 gets good reviews here just like the Colt Rail Gun. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I found a used one at a local gs for 220 I cant decide to grab it or not. Don't. Taurus makes junk. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:32:09 PM EDT
[#32]
I wonder why they wouldn't even consider it- sounds like they already have their minds made up about something.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:33:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anyone actually prefer a slide mounted safety to a frame safety? Seriously. ETA: some people don't mind it, but do they actually PREFER it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IT does seem tho the armys biggest complaint is the slide mounted safety which beretta DIDN'T address so maybe we will see another revision with a frame mounted safety which would be very Does anyone actually prefer a slide mounted safety to a frame safety? Seriously. ETA: some people don't mind it, but do they actually PREFER it? Me. In fact, both of my pistols that have safetys are slide mounted. I also sold my USP .45F to buy a 92FS. ETA: Engaging the safety is part of my draw. It's easier with the slide mount as I just naturally hit it during the draw. It's a bit easier than the frame mounted and pushing down. One just basically happens, one required a real action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:34:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The safety is in a retarded position. We had to leave out pistol chambers empty when outside the wire because they would routinely get moved from safe to fire through the normal duties of helicopter crewmembers. Whats the fucking point of a safety if you don't know what position it will be in when you reach for it in a need? Are you concerned about having the pistol off-safe, or not knowing what position the safety is in when you need the gun? With the gun on "fire" it is a safe to carry as any DAO pistol; and if you practice flicking the safety off on your draw then it doesn't matter whether it was on fire or not to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:38:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Another point, the whole reliability thing concerning glocks etc is a moot point. The Berretta is a really nice firearm and plenty reliable if clean. Are you going to fire 600 rounds through your pistol in a single sitting in combat?! If so you are dead. Should have had a rifle. At most a few mags would be used. This is just some money grab. All it is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:38:55 PM EDT
[#36]
5 reasons the Beretta M9A3 will be the next service pistol
I'm not advancing this narrative, just sharing for information reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:40:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Ruger rushed the P-85 for the trials Beretta won. After the broken slides(Beretta), Ruger took a brand new pistol.
1. Cut out the ejection port side of the frame, fired 5000 rounds with the right side of the slide MISSING. 2. New slide, cut out the LEFT side of the slide. 5000 rounds fired. 3. Tapped the end of the barrel, screwed a bolt into it. BANG!. New barrel, I think the ejector, could've been the extractor, and 5000 rounds fired. They wanted to unscrew the bolt and run the rounds through the barrel, but someone said that was to risky. Early P-90s(.45 single stack)were first built with BarSto Barrels. Reported to be very accurate. Mine is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:41:06 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There will not be a new general issue pistol for decades. This is just another circle jerk for some retard to use as a bullet point for his/her next promotion. Yep, "Current plans call for the Army to purchase more than 280,000 handguns from a single vendor, with delivery of the first new handgun systems scheduled for 2017" So, allowing for usual government efficiency, 2030, give or take. One of my favorite comments on this sort of thing is: "Shortly after the end of World War I, the U.S. Ordnance Corps began looking for a smaller cartridge to replace the 30-06 Springfield. With typical government efficiency, the quest was still being pursued toward the end of the Second World War." This is from the Sierra Bullets reloading manual and website. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:43:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK let's be real. Having shot thousands and thousands of rounds though tons of various sidearms I will say without a doubt that the m9/92 is by far the nicest feeling and shooting handgun I could wish for. Its heavy, steel frame feels mechanical. The sights are really nice. If kept clean it is really really reliable. In fact, I've never even seen one jam. Ever. 2" groups at 60 feet all day out of that 4.9" barrel. You could beat someone to death with it if you ran out of ammo and you can get 17 round mags. If you wanna get rid of that for some polymer framed shitty triggered glock or s&w have fun with that. The only reason why Signs and H&K cost so much is the name. I still prefer my Berretta over any sidearm aside from maybe a USP. Here it is folks; a guy who shoots some guns sometimes has told us how it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:44:01 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Considering what the vast majority of the military use a handgun for you really aren't all that crazy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
you might think im a dumbass for suggesting this but. i think the ideal handgun for the general military would be a ruger p95 with a decocker. you can say what you want, but. 1. it would be 100% reliable. 2. be rugged as fuck.. about indestructable 3. be cheap as hell. ) prob $200-$300 each) special forces might need something more special... but for everyone else i dont see the downside. Considering what the vast majority of the military use a handgun for you really aren't all that crazy. It really isn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:50:26 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't. Taurus makes junk. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They should take a look at Taurus then. The PT92 gets good reviews here just like the Colt Rail Gun. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I found a used one at a local gs for 220 I cant decide to grab it or not. Don't. Taurus makes junk. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Taurus makes a lot of junk, but the PT-92/99 is not amongst it. Those pistols are good to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:52:48 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here it is folks; a guy who shoots some guns sometimes has told us how it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK let's be real. Having shot thousands and thousands of rounds though tons of various sidearms I will say without a doubt that the m9/92 is by far the nicest feeling and shooting handgun I could wish for. Its heavy, steel frame feels mechanical. The sights are really nice. If kept clean it is really really reliable. In fact, I've never even seen one jam. Ever. 2" groups at 60 feet all day out of that 4.9" barrel. You could beat someone to death with it if you ran out of ammo and you can get 17 round mags. If you wanna get rid of that for some polymer framed shitty triggered glock or s&w have fun with that. The only reason why Signs and H&K cost so much is the name. I still prefer my Berretta over any sidearm aside from maybe a USP. Here it is folks; a guy who shoots some guns sometimes has told us how it is. You're right such an expert...that doesn't even know what the frame made out of....hint...its NOT steel. also MOST issue m9 still have "combat sights " on them which fucking SUCK ASS and are far inferior to even the 3 dot sight system on the new ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:52:56 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sits in a holster just fine... check. I'll say this much about the M9/92 though, they're sweet shooters. Which makes shooting them once every six months that much nicer.
I love my own M9 and will be kicking doors down for an M9A3. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
you might think im a dumbass for suggesting this but. i think the ideal handgun for the general military would be a ruger p95 with a decocker. you can say what you want, but. 1. it would be 100% reliable. 2. be rugged as fuck.. about indestructable 3. be cheap as hell. ) prob $200-$300 each) special forces might need something more special... but for everyone else i dont see the downside. Considering what the vast majority of the military use a handgun for you really aren't all that crazy. Sits in a holster just fine... check. I'll say this much about the M9/92 though, they're sweet shooters. Which makes shooting them once every six months that much nicer.
I love my own M9 and will be kicking doors down for an M9A3. If you carry the M9 in a holster which doesn't have a flap then you will find it off safe more frequently than on, it catches on things and switches over. If you keep your fingers where they should be it isn't really an issue . . . but. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:54:12 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It really isn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
you might think im a dumbass for suggesting this but. i think the ideal handgun for the general military would be a ruger p95 with a decocker. you can say what you want, but. 1. it would be 100% reliable. 2. be rugged as fuck.. about indestructable 3. be cheap as hell. ) prob $200-$300 each) special forces might need something more special... but for everyone else i dont see the downside. Considering what the vast majority of the military use a handgun for you really aren't all that crazy. It really isn't. Can't get more rugged than one of those pistols. American made by an American company. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:56:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. If you struggle with the safety on the M9, you have no business handling firearms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does everyone hate the slide mounted safety?? I barely notice it. Because we have opposable thumbs that only really bend in one direction... Sweeping the safety on the M9 as part of the draw has always been easy as hell to me. Maybe because I only really shoot glocks otherwise, I dunno. I've just never understood the bitching about it. Quoted:
I think the M9A3 is a decock only. Not as issued, but one thing they mentioned was that it was "readily convertible" to G model by an armorer. I assume that's their speak for "would take an arfcommer ten minutes". This. If you struggle with the safety on the M9, you have no business handling firearms. You should not be fucking with the safety on a DA/SA pistol, period. - Live round in pipe - Decock on safe - Holster - Push safety to fire - Draw gun, pull trigger, bang Of course the Army is too retarded to allow soldiers to carry guns the way they were designed to be carried, so... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 3:58:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IT does seem tho the armys biggest complaint is the slide mounted safety which beretta DIDN'T address so maybe we will see another revision with a frame mounted safety which would be very In other words Taurus .. honestly the Taurus copy is better in every way |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 4:01:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you might think im a dumbass for suggesting this but. i think the ideal handgun for the general military would be a ruger p95 with a decocker. it might be a bulky handgun... but thats not a issue when its carried on a web belt..you can say what you want, but. 1. it would be 100% reliable. 2. be rugged as fuck.. about indestructable 3. be cheap as hell. ) prob $200-$300 each) 4. american made special forces might need something more special... but for everyone else i dont see the downside. and it would save a fuck load of money. probably be at least 1/3 the price of anything else they choose from. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp58/buck19delta/34zj21g_zpsb5d03788.jpg I think that was the one that passed all the technical tests that brought us the m9 best honestly |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 4:01:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK let's be real. Having shot thousands and thousands of rounds though tons of various sidearms I will say without a doubt that the m9/92 is by far the nicest feeling and shooting handgun I could wish for. Its heavy, steel frame feels mechanical. The sights are really nice. If kept clean it is really really reliable. In fact, I've never even seen one jam. Ever. 2" groups at 60 feet all day out of that 4.9" barrel. You could beat someone to death with it if you ran out of ammo and you can get 17 round mags. If you wanna get rid of that for some polymer framed shitty triggered glock or s&w have fun with that. The only reason why Signs and H&K cost so much is the name. I still prefer my Berretta over any sidearm aside from maybe a USP. lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 4:01:44 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is nothing wrong the current Beretta I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of... disagree with you there? Yeah... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2015 4:02:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right such an expert...that doesn't even know what the frame made out of....hint...its NOT steel. also MOST issue m9 still have "combat sights " on them which fucking SUCK ASS and are far inferior to even the 3 dot sight system on the new ones. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK let's be real. Having shot thousands and thousands of rounds though tons of various sidearms I will say without a doubt that the m9/92 is by far the nicest feeling and shooting handgun I could wish for. Its heavy, steel frame feels mechanical. The sights are really nice. If kept clean it is really really reliable. In fact, I've never even seen one jam. Ever. 2" groups at 60 feet all day out of that 4.9" barrel. You could beat someone to death with it if you ran out of ammo and you can get 17 round mags. If you wanna get rid of that for some polymer framed shitty triggered glock or s&w have fun with that. The only reason why Signs and H&K cost so much is the name. I still prefer my Berretta over any sidearm aside from maybe a USP. Here it is folks; a guy who shoots some guns sometimes has told us how it is. You're right such an expert...that doesn't even know what the frame made out of....hint...its NOT steel. also MOST issue m9 still have "combat sights " on them which fucking SUCK ASS and are far inferior to even the 3 dot sight system on the new ones. lol. Don't let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument! Back to reality, I don't think we have seen the end of the M9A3's pitch to the military. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
