Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 7/29/2002 7:55:53 AM EST
Bum mag springs? Bullets too little? Rust & corrosion? see it at... www.sftt.org/afghanlessons_files/frame.htm
Link Posted: 7/29/2002 11:42:16 AM EST
www.sftt.org/afghanlessons_files/frame.htm

Link no work very goodly...
Link Posted: 7/29/2002 3:42:24 PM EST
Works good now, thanks, Ken. They don't hold the M-4 in all that high regard either...something about the bullets being too small...
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 6:07:49 AM EST
Just seems strange after all the testing and desert storm, these "problems" appear. Sounds more like a maintenance problem that becomes a gun problem? Perhaps the gun in the holster is forgotten until you need it? I had a "range gun" to clean up from a local PD (92SF) that was loosey goosey, other than the safety detent spring being weak, it worked flawlessly even after untold thousands of rounds and operators.
Link Posted: 8/11/2002 10:06:38 AM EST
I have a buddy that had the locking bar of his M9 break while firing. Berretta said "that happens sometimes" and won't fix it. I would never trust a berretta and plan to take a 1911 if I get deployed.
Link Posted: 8/12/2002 6:55:22 AM EST
If you get deployed, my heart goes out to you. And you deserve the best we have to offer, which in my opinion may be the 1911. After all, we learned that lesson many years ago with the .38, who forgot it?
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 8:58:32 AM EST
In the three years I have been shooting IDPA matches I have yet to see a Beretta jam. In virtually every IDPA match I have shot I have seen at least one 1911 choke on something.

End of story in my book. Beretta all the way.

Link Posted: 8/14/2002 2:20:07 PM EST
Aimshawki, I hear ya. Berettas never jam, IDPA or whatever...granted, no argument there. But in a hostile combat environment/situation where the troops may or may not be "gun people" the 9MM in FMJ just isn't getting the job done. Not being allowed hollowpoints in +P, as we civilians are, limits what that caliber can do, right? Stars and Stripes did a story August 14th (today) about the M-9 ---> WWW.estripes.com Also, a loose GI .45 isnt the same as a IDPA model...I never heard of excessive jamming complaints during WWI or WWII. I do cherish my Berettas along with my Colt .45s. But these stories are surfacing on a regular basis, either way, wouldn't you want the best for our men, under their conditions, with targets that shoot back?
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 4:48:02 PM EST
Berettas rarely jam on the range because their open slide proides no hiding spot for brass. But I am concerned that it will allow dirt in.

Other complaints:
The grip is too large.
The controls are awkward.
Glock or 1911 triggers are better.
The integral front sight cant be replaced easily.


The Norwegians and the Austrians, and Israeli police had the right idea, they bought Glock.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 9:14:55 AM EST


The grip is too large.



This has been addressed on the new Vertec model pistols.


The controls are awkward.



The controls are fine (and completely standard) with the exception of the safety, and there are ways around that. Most people just decock the pistol and leave the safety off, that way there is no need to bother with the safety when you draw. Beretta makes the G model where the safety only works as a decocker, the same as above but without any risk of the safety being engaged. And then there is the simple matter of practicing to use the safety.



Glock or 1911 triggers are better.



The 1911 trigger can be made better, and the straight pull gives it a big advantage. The Glock trigger is one that many people say they can never get comfortable with. The Beretta trigger can be made much better with a little stoning and the use of the lighter hammer spring that Beretta puts in the double action only models.



The integral front sight cant be replaced easily.



This has been addressed on the newer Vertec and Brigadier models. They both have a thicker 'loop' over the barrel and the front sight is in a dovetail so that it can be easily replaced.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 9:50:21 AM EST
I would like to see figures on how many troops are actually carrying Berettas in Afghanistan. Additionally, how many that actually carry the Beretta have had the opertunity to use it in combat.

During the Gulf war the majority of the troops were confined to the base, the war was conducted from the air, only a marine reserve unit from Miami really saw much ground combat, and then at the end the majority of our people then went for a four day walk in the desert.

The majority of our troops in Afghanistan are issued and are using rifles not hand guns. This includes all the special operations people from various units that although issued a hand gun are primarily engaging targets with rifles.

By the way history will show the same for the 1911. The majority of US troops only handled one briefly in training. Thats one of the main reasons it had a reputation for a strong kick and inaccuracy.

Most never carried it in combat and many that did actually engaged the enemy with a rifle.

The Beretta is a good weapon that will tolerate a lot of abuse. The 9mm has been inservice almost as long as the 45 (but not with the US army) and works relatively well for a FMJ. The truth is that even with the 45, they DON'T all fall to hardball.

Much of what we here about the Beretta, the 9mm and 45 have little basis in reality from actual users from groups of statistically significant numbers.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 10:55:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By FALShootist:
During the Gulf war the majority of the troops were confined to the base, the war was conducted from the air, only a marine reserve unit from Miami really saw much ground combat, and then at the end the majority of our people then went for a four day walk in the desert.




That is crap, and if I remember right the reserve tank company from Miami, was part of 2d MEB and was part of the deception plan and went ashore after most of the fighting.
Link Posted: 8/16/2002 10:01:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/16/2002 10:16:15 AM EST by FALShootist]
Stlrn,

What part of that is crap? Most of the ground troops in the gulf war did little more than get sand in their eyes and go for a walk in the desert. I may have the wrong unit but I don't think so. I believe the majority of Gulf war ground fighting was done by the units involved in the deception and not by the main force.

If I remember correctly more troops were killed and injured when their barracks were hit with a rocket than were casualties of actual combat.

The war ended four days after the ground offensive started. Sorry, there aren't a lot of tough guy ground combat stories out of that war like WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. However, there were some, you may even have one.

The point was the Beretta never saw much use in the Gulf War. I doubt it is seeing much more use in Afghanistan. At the present time there are only 8,000 Americans in Afghanistan. Out of that, how many have a Beretta and how many of them have shot at anyone in combat with them? I'm willing to bet not many.

I think the majority of crap we here about the Beretta, M16 and M4 is little more than the product of some REMF's fantasy battles that have never been fought.

I'm always reading about how unreliable the Beretta and M16/AR15 family of weapons is, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that I am the only one that has used these weapons and found them to be utterly reliable and accurate. A good number of American police departments use the Beretta without problems.

My department is one of the largest in the country and approves most D/A semi auto 9mm, 40S&W, and 45 ACP guns. Our armorers found that the Beretta is more reliable than the Sigs, HKs and all the rest, with the least amount of jams and parts breakage. Its hard to imagine that privately purchased and issued police guns are working better than the military's. Especially, because many cops are notorious for poor maintenance practices.
Link Posted: 8/16/2002 10:17:24 AM EST
There can never be a winner on the "which gun is better" argument. I have heard from fairly reliable sources that the folks who may be in a position to need handguns are bringing whatever they want. Everything from .357 Dan Wessons, 1911s, Sigs, Glock and Berretta. I doubt the standard issue sidearms see much service as opposed to the longarms.
Link Posted: 8/16/2002 10:44:22 AM EST
Anyone remember the Beretta ad, sometime after DS where they show a picture of the M9 and the quote "The only reason we made it home alive is because our Berettas didn't fail."

I really laughed my ass off on that one, mentally picturing a battalion of soldiers and marines marching forward with nothing but M9 pistols.
Link Posted: 8/16/2002 12:15:21 PM EST
The part that is crap is that there was not fighting. The deception effort was just that and was not involved in the fighting. There was not allot of small arms fire (but there was some), but there was allot of ground combat, coalition armor destroyed thousands of enemy vehicles, artillery shoot several thousand rounds down range, allot of ATGMs were shot.

What I think you are referring to was a reserve tank co from Yakima Washington, that transitioned to M1A1 in the Gulf and destroyed an Iraqi armor Battalion without taking a lose. They and all the other Marines were a supporting effort, that were to push the Iraqis into the main effort, in effect acting as a pump to push the Iraqis out into heavy forces that would destroy them.
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 12:03:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By FALShootist:If I remember correctly more troops were killed and injured when their barracks were hit with a rocket than were casualties of actual combat


And believe it or not more troops were killed at home on the base in car accidents than there were killed in the entire war !!

Oh, and I don't know the details, but if their barracks were hit with a rocket, I would presume that would be some form of combat!....But what do I know.........

Link Posted: 10/27/2002 10:25:40 PM EST
180 degree ejection port, which is a huge plus, and you're worried about dirt getting into the chamber? Who walks around with the slide locked back in the middle of a dust storm?
The M9 wasn't made to be an assault pistol. I'd be suprised if it has actually been used in many occasions over in Trashcanistan.
You're telling me SF's and Marines jumped into a situation so deep that they ran out of ammo in their MBR?
You're telling me they actually engaged the Taliban at less then 25 yards?
This same exact story rolled out in Desert storm, and they flew a shipment of 1911's to save the day. You've got to be kidding me if you believe that steaming load.
I put my life on the line every day with a Beretta 92g Elite II. I've fired thousands of rounds threw it, and have never had a failure. It'll eat any ammo you throw at it right out of the box.
True, 9mm ball sucks. But for a back up last resort weapon, I'd take the reliability and large capacity (15+1) over 7+1 rounds of 45acp ball.
If one thing is ever constant with soldiers, it is they bitch about equipment. Expecially when it is heavy. In that reguard, I'd assume they'd rather have the Glock.
-Steve
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 11:46:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By stevenb:
180 degree ejection port, which is a huge plus, and you're worried about dirt getting into the chamber? Who walks around with the slide locked back in the middle of a dust storm?
The M9 wasn't made to be an assault pistol. I'd be suprised if it has actually been used in many occasions over in Trashcanistan.
You're telling me SF's and Marines jumped into a situation so deep that they ran out of ammo in their MBR?
You're telling me they actually engaged the Taliban at less then 25 yards?
This same exact story rolled out in Desert storm, and they flew a shipment of 1911's to save the day. You've got to be kidding me if you believe that steaming load.
I put my life on the line every day with a Beretta 92g Elite II. I've fired thousands of rounds threw it, and have never had a failure. It'll eat any ammo you throw at it right out of the box.
True, 9mm ball sucks. But for a back up last resort weapon, I'd take the reliability and large capacity (15+1) over 7+1 rounds of 45acp ball.
If one thing is ever constant with soldiers, it is they bitch about equipment. Expecially when it is heavy. In that reguard, I'd assume they'd rather have the Glock.
-Steve



Trashcanistan- LMAO...
You should check out the latest issue of SOF, the last page is by Col. Hackworth, he goes on and on about the M-9 and all the letters he's been getting about it from soldiers and such. He even compares it to the early M-16 in Vietnam, he thinks were sending soldiers to their death by "making" them use the M-9.
In reference to the caliber size, one soldier said " ..the 9mm round is like firing paintballs. I had to pump 4 rounds into an al-Qaeda who was coming at me before he dropped...". A Special Forces sergeant says," The large-caliber, slow moving .45 bullet puts the bad guys on the ground. Lighter stuff like the Beretta's 9-mm will too--eventually-- but on the battlefield you almost always have to double tap, and in close combat a gunfighter hasn't the time or the ammo to lose firing two rounds."
In another fight a Ranger fired several torso shots with a .45 pistol before his foe fell." When we looked at their corpses, we found their mouths full of khat,"he says. "It was like these guys were pumped up on PCP. With the Beretta, I'd have to fire all 15 rds and then thrown the pistol at this wild eyed dude. "

Here's another interesting quote "When I ran out of ammo with my rifle, I pulled my pistol,"a Ranger sergeant says."It saved my life. I hit a number of enemy 30-40 yards away who went down immediatly from my .45 rounds. With a Beretta, I wouldn't have made it because of the far-too-light 9mm bullet, play in the action and its limited range."

Granted, I'm not in their position, but I like my M-9 and believe it to be an excellant pistol.


007
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 10:39:16 AM EST
One thing about Hack is he never allows little things like the facts or the truth to get in the way of a good story.

Even in the what you quoted, does it make much sense, Ranger shoots someone outside of the effective range of his non-issue 45. Than states if he had been using a M9 the target wouldn't have gone down, so not only did he shoot him with a pistol he probably wasn't allowed to bring into country, since army PCC/PCIs are pretty thorough, but he gets psychic abilities and can predict things that didn't happen.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 11:31:49 AM EST

It didn't make much sense to me either, especially the part about 9mm not haveing the range of a .45, I'm no expert, but it would seem that the 9mm would go farther than the .45 ? What do you think ?

Link Posted: 10/29/2002 2:12:46 PM EST
The US Army so much as admits that the M9 is a less than reliable weapon, at least as a Duty weapon for MPs. I've seen an official Ordnance Corps Student Text that goes into some detail on why you have to do so much more maintenance on an M9 if you are a Provost Marshall Office MP (Traffic/Post Police types). The damn service issue M9 is not reliable enough for the MPs that they have to do that much more work on it. I've carried one. Nice design, tight slide, I thought, for a service pistol, but the finish was crappy, and very rust-prone, especially the upper half of the barrel, which seemed to get the finish worn off easily. If I gotta carry a 9mm, gimme a CZ75 variant. Otherwise, gimme back my .45ACP. I've found that the double stack frames on a para-ord LDA transfer the recoil very well.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 2:54:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By MayorOfCampAtterbury:
The US Army so much as admits that the M9 is a less than reliable weapon, at least as a Duty weapon for MPs. I've seen an official Ordnance Corps Student Text that goes into some detail on why you have to do so much more maintenance on an M9 if you are a Provost Marshall Office MP (Traffic/Post Police types). The damn service issue M9 is not reliable enough for the MPs that they have to do that much more work on it. I've carried one. Nice design, tight slide, I thought, for a service pistol, but the finish was crappy, and very rust-prone, especially the upper half of the barrel, which seemed to get the finish worn off easily. If I gotta carry a 9mm, gimme a CZ75 variant. Otherwise, gimme back my .45ACP. I've found that the double stack frames on a para-ord LDA transfer the recoil very well.



The M9 is, hands-down, far more reliable than any of the issue M1911A1 pistols in the US inventory. The M9 (and it's superior, the P226) met and EXCEEDED the test requirements (which would have decimated the M1911A1). I have some concerns about the M9, but it's ability to reliably chamber, fire and extract a cartridge surpass that of the .45 by a wide margin.

However, I agree with your comments about the finish (my finish wore off in less than 2500 rnds).
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 3:57:17 PM EST
I have never understood why the issue M9 barrels all lack finish. One of my armorer recently put a new barrel on an M9, and after a month or so the finish is gone.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 6:00:49 PM EST

No Sh*t!! What's up with the finish ??

That is my only complaint, I look at the barrel a month later after buying it and the damn thing looks like I've been pissing on it or something. Not to mention you flick it with your finger nail and it chips. What do they call it, Bruniton ? I wonder if they fixed that on the Vertecs ?

007


Link Posted: 10/29/2002 7:00:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By Hoplophile:


The grip is too large.



This has been addressed on the new Vertec model pistols.


The controls are awkward.



The controls are fine (and completely standard) with the exception of the safety, and there are ways around that. Most people just decock the pistol and leave the safety off, that way there is no need to bother with the safety when you draw. Beretta makes the G model where the safety only works as a decocker, the same as above but without any risk of the safety being engaged. And then there is the simple matter of practicing to use the safety.



Glock or 1911 triggers are better.



The 1911 trigger can be made better, and the straight pull gives it a big advantage. The Glock trigger is one that many people say they can never get comfortable with. The Beretta trigger can be made much better with a little stoning and the use of the lighter hammer spring that Beretta puts in the double action only models.



The integral front sight cant be replaced easily.



This has been addressed on the newer Vertec and Brigadier models. They both have a thicker 'loop' over the barrel and the front sight is in a dovetail so that it can be easily replaced.




Hoplophile: We're talking the M9 pistol specifically here, not the Beretta line. None of these changes effect the Army's inventory. Maybe eventually we may see an M9A1 with such features, but I have heard nothing about it.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 7:05:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By STLRN:
I have never understood why the issue M9 barrels all lack finish. One of my armorer recently put a new barrel on an M9, and after a month or so the finish is gone.



That's the only real complaint I have with them too - that and the grip is way too big for most females.

Within a day of leaving our arms room last month on a humid day, every M9 had a bright orange barrel. I find myself lubing my own barrel daily when in the field.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 7:13:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By STLRN:
One thing about Hack is he never allows little things like the facts or the truth to get in the way of a good story.

Even in the what you quoted, does it make much sense, Ranger shoots someone outside of the effective range of his non-issue 45. Than states if he had been using a M9 the target wouldn't have gone down, so not only did he shoot him with a pistol he probably wasn't allowed to bring into country, since army PCC/PCIs are pretty thorough, but he gets psychic abilities and can predict things that didn't happen.



Good points.

I've got $100.00 that says Hack was probably bashing the M1911A1 back when it was the standard. Now he talks as if it could do no wrong. The man is just never content.

He complains that the M4 is not suitable for the ranges they are engaging targets in the 'Stan, yet quotes anecdotes about people using pistols at perfect carbine ranges!

Issue everybody M14s and Hack would be writing stories about how heavy the damn things are or something.

He lost a lot of credibility with me when he bashed the interceptor body armor as using somehow obsolete technology - because reporters had concealable body armor that he claimed was better. Did he do any research as to the level of protection one affords over the other?


Adam
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 7:17:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By FALShootist:
Stlrn,

What part of that is crap? Most of the ground troops in the gulf war did little more than get sand in their eyes and go for a walk in the desert.




Just because the media wasn't along to film it, does not mean no combat occurred!

A "walk in the desert?" - that is what happens when you depend on CNN for your worldly knowledge.

I agree with you on the M9 though. It is a defensive weapon for brass and staff pukes. It fills that role well.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 7:31:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By FALShootist:
I would like to see figures on how many troops are actually carrying Berettas in Afghanistan. Additionally, how many that actually carry the Beretta have had the opertunity to use it in combat.



Dittos - I would assume that in the environment of Afghanistan that the rifle was king and would be used in damn close to 100% of all infantry action.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 7:34:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Adam_White:

I agree with you on the M9 though. It is a defensive weapon for brass and staff pukes. It fills that role well.



A pistol in general is a defensive weapon for brass and staff pukes, regardless of the model.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 9:13:43 PM EST
The way the Marine Corps looks at, if your issued a pistol only, than you shouldn't really be given a rifle because if you have a rifle than you will be too busy trying to use it, vice doing your job of leading those that are carrying the rifles. Its too easy to get rapped up in shooting, vice directing the battle.

The funny thing about the finish on the M9s is that all if its goes away from the barrel but the slides and receivers are fine. I think the way the finish bonds to the steel of the barrel isn't adequate, it is almost like the CLP takes it off.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 9:26:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By STLRN:
The funny thing about the finish on the M9s is that all if its goes away from the barrel but the slides and receivers are fine. I think the way the finish bonds to the steel of the barrel isn't adequate, it is almost like the CLP takes it off.



Exactly!! I thought I had f*cked it up!! The finish is good on the rest but scratches to easy.

I look at pistols in general as being secondary weapons, something to grab when your M4 SNAFU's.

I'm curious, do they have to use the FMJ ? What company is making their FMJ, Federal ? I thought they were switching over to NAMMO ?

Off Topic: Has anybody used the infrared tracers yet ? Are they totally invisible to the naked eye.

007
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 9:48:32 PM EST
Yes all we use are FMJs, In the last year have shot both Win and Federal ammo, I am sure there are more manufactures out there that though. Haven't shot the dim tracers yet, all we get is standard 4-1 for our M2s, SAWs and M240Gs for training.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 11:45:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By 007:

I'm curious, do they have to use the FMJ ? What company is making their FMJ, Federal ? I thought they were switching over to NAMMO ?




I haven't paid attention to our training ammo in some time - however all of my 9mm in our ABL is Winchester.

Adam
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 8:39:20 PM EST

Even in the what you quoted, does it make much sense, Ranger shoots someone outside of the effective range of his non-issue 45.


Don't they get HK USPs? IIRC, that gun was designed to give spec-ops troops a more-modern-than-1911 .45 weapon (because .45ACP is a slower, easier to silence round, or something like that...).
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 8:48:32 PM EST
Nope, Rangers follow pretty much the TO/E for a light/Airborne/Air Assault unit. The people in the unit issued pistols are issued M9s like most of the rest of the army.
Link Posted: 11/6/2002 7:17:31 AM EST
My personal experience with Beretta has been less than stellar. I had an M21 .22lr that would fire DA if the safety was on. You could physically "pull through" the manual safety. I sent it back to them and they said it was well within spec and the safety was meant for SA use. As a last resort gun it wouldn't have had the safety on anyway, but I was unimpressed.
As far as combat troops, my brother-in-law is currently serving in a NAVPSECWAR SBU and is issued Sig 226. When he and his buddy crashed at my house after a training exercise in our area, they didn't care much what pistol they had (although my B-I-L's buddy really liked the idea of a stainless .357mag revolver) becaue when you're in that deep'a doo-doo it's generally over for your ass( at least in his proffession).Thankfully, as a civillian, I am unecumbered by beauracratic/political BS and can choose the firearm/ammo combo I like best.
Link Posted: 11/6/2002 2:21:28 PM EST
I wasn't impressed with the little model 21 either. But have had great luck with all the 92's I have had. Kinda like comparing a Cavalier to an Impala?
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 6:39:33 PM EST
In reviewing several posts above I noted several of you lauding the performance and reliability of the M1911A1. To those people I ask: "Have you ever been ISSUED one from the COMPANY ARMORY?...RECENTLY??"

I served from 1987 through Desert Storm, and never once laid eyes on an M-9. I did see that the General and his Staff were carrying their pretty civilian fancy walnut gripped 92Fs around, but line troops had to carry issue .45 from a mix-match of manufacturers from Colt to Ithaca. Few, if any, had finish on them, many had no rear sights due to excessive wear on the dovetail cut, and a long list of maladies could follow. I never once saw my unit qualify where we didn't have at least one in a firing group fail to qualify due to a weapon related malfunction. In short, they were crap. From Friedburg to Fort Hood, the damn things had exceeded their intended service life so far that they were simply worn out, and needed a total rebuild to get back into the game reliably.

To counter this, I bought a plain Jane 92F to take with me instead. I found it to be accurate, reliable, and a violation of a standing order from the General (excluding his staff of coarse). It was therefore relegated to the back of dad's safe to await my return, and later sold off in a moment of weakness, but I digress.

I can remember doing everything that I could to rebuild my issue 1911A1 prior to going, but I never felt truly comforatable with it. Being on a tank, that pistol was considered my primary weapon. The M16A2 in the turret had to be shared by all 4 crewmwmbers.

I won't disagree that the 1911A1 is a great and reliable pistol, it is. The problem comes with the amount of wear that our 1911A1s have suffered since the last new one was purchased in 1945. Thats nearly 58 years in active service. Nothing can stand up to that amount of abuse.

If you want to argue that we should start building 1911A1s again and issue them to the troops brand new, I'm with you.


Saleen
Top Top