I was reading the internet and came across this:
www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2tfbnffk39k7l?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=M9+Pistol&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04a&linktext=M9%20Pistol

Under the Joint Service Small Arms Program which was run by the U.S. Air Force, a number of 9mm pistol designs were trialed in the late 1970s to find a replacement for the 1911. In 1980, the Beretta 92S-1 design was chosen over entries from Colt, Smith & Wesson, various FN models, the Star M28, and Heckler & Koch models. The result, however, was challenged by the Army and new tests were to be done (this time run by the Army rather than the Air Force). In the new test all the pistols were rejected, and in a second test a year later they were all rejected again. Another year later, in 1984, the trials started again with updated entries from S&W, Beretta, SIG-Sauer, H&K, Walther, Steyr, and FN. Beretta won this competition but there was a new trial, the XM10 competition, in 1988. This resulted in two different trials that were more limited, but resulted in the Beretta design being kept (with an update to it happening during the same time frame).

Does anyone know what those pistols were? It would be great if someone could reply to this thread with the a picture of each pistol from each company that sumitted a pistol. I was totally unaware the HK actually even submitted and pistol, and I had no idea Ruger had a shoe in as well. Does anyone know what pistols these companies submitted?

I don't have pics, but the pistols were basically as follows:

Ruger P-89

Sig Sauer P226

Walther P-88

Smith and Wesson was their standard double-stack 9mm with slide-mounted decocker/safety.  I can never remember their model #'s on their autos.

H&K submitted the P7M13, I believe (though I could be wrong).

Don't know about the Steyr and FN entries.

I heard that sig-sauer actually won the competition but beretta put in the lower bid, any truth to this?

Quoted: I heard that sig-sauer actually won the competition but beretta put in the lower bid, any truth to this?

Both Sig and Beretta met the test criterion.  Beretta came in with the lower cost bid.

The big confusion is that these are all different tests, and over the decades that it actually took the requirements changed drastically.

Basically the requirements placed on the pistol for the Army was impossible to meet.  That's why the Army balked at the USAF tests, and why the next couple tests went without any winner.  Alot of it was inertia of the Army at the time to refuse to change things, and alot of it was just political infighting with the other services really.  There were alot of dogs in the fight, and even within the Army there was alot of political fighting going on and certain groups would take any chance to block the other by adding or deleting things.  It was truly a nightmare.

Towards the end of the mess, it started to get staightened out.

The eventual requirement was for two pistols from the same maker that would be of the same model, just one big and one small.  The aim was to replace all the service sidearms, which actually included a fair number of small pistols.  This is where the HKP7M8 and P7M13, and the Sig P226 and P228, and Beretta 92 and 92c, etc all hail from.  

While it was a pretty good idea, the military can still screw good ideas up, and in the end it was simplified because there was no combination of the same model that was "perfect".  So they split the pistols into two separate trials.  The first was for the service sidearm, the XM9.

The XM9 trials consisted of:
Beretta 92SB-F
Sig P226
Steyr GB
Colt SSP (experimental pistol, never produced)
FN-Browning with a DA pistol I can't recall
HK P7M13
Walther P88
S&W 459

If you want pics, find them on the net.  You probably know most of them already.

Contrary to popular belief, the Beretta was cheaper by $3,000,000 than the Sig P226.  As lowest bidder who met requirements, it was chosen.  

After protests Congress ordered a second pistol competition.  However, since the M9 contract of over 320,000 pistols was legally binding the M9 went into production.

The XM10 competition consisted of:
Beretta M9
Sig P226
S&W 459
Ruger P85

Sig refuesed to participate in the trials, as they said they already met the requirements from the XM9 trials.  

The Army announced that the M9 won the second trials and the contract for a further 142,292 pistols.

The second half of the pistol procurment was for a compact pistol.  This was the XM11 and was chosen as the Sig P228.  

I vaugely remember the USAF ran trials, and some of the entries.  IIRC the NRA's American Rifleman had an article on it with some photos back then in the late 70's.

Before anyone comments on the Air Force being the pistol-testing service of choice, think of this:

99% of the AF's combat force carried pistols (pilots & aircrew)....

How much of the Army carried pistols back then? Not much...

AF & Navy were the logical services to spec this item...

Think about it...

Quoted: I heard that sig-sauer actually won the competition but beretta put in the lower bid, any truth to this?

I have a neighbor/friend who is an ex army Major.  He was involved in the tests.  He said the Sig won with the Beretta a close second, but the Beretta was cheaper to fix so the Army went with them.

Quoted: Before anyone comments on the Air Force being the pistol-testing service of choice, think of this: 99% of the AF's combat force carried pistols (pilots & aircrew).... How much of the Army carried pistols back then? Not much... AF & Navy were the logical services to spec this item... Think about it...

If you do think about it, you'd realize there are far more pistol armed troops in the Army than in the USAF or USN.

Using a percentage doesn't reflect an actual number.

Think about it.

Quoted: Quoted: Before anyone comments on the Air Force being the pistol-testing service of choice, think of this: 99% of the AF's combat force carried pistols (pilots & aircrew).... How much of the Army carried pistols back then? Not much... AF & Navy were the logical services to spec this item... Think about it... If you do think about it, you'd realize there are far more pistol armed troops in the Army than in the USAF or USN. Using a percentage doesn't reflect an actual number. Think about it.

How about you post numbers.....

Company commanders, mortarmen, machine gunners, MP's, CID agents, MI, helicopter pilots, first Sergeants...

shore patrol USN ,SO TAKE THAT YOU MEANIE PERSON YOU.AS JOE the least favorite of the 3 stooges would say.

...and then the Beretta's stated hitting back, right in the face.
For all the Glock KB talk, I find it funny that nobody talkes about Beretta's slide breakage problems.

Quoted: ...and then the Beretta's stated hitting back, right in the face. For all the Glock KB talk, I find it funny that nobody talkes about Beretta's slide breakage problems.

That is because it is NOT a problem.

I suppose you also believe in bigfoot and the tooth fairy?

Quoted: ...and then the Beretta's stated hitting back, right in the face. For all the Glock KB talk, I find it funny that nobody talkes about Beretta's slide breakage problems.

Another overblown "problem".

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Before anyone comments on the Air Force being the pistol-testing service of choice, think of this: 99% of the AF's combat force carried pistols (pilots & aircrew).... How much of the Army carried pistols back then? Not much... AF & Navy were the logical services to spec this item... Think about it... If you do think about it, you'd realize there are far more pistol armed troops in the Army than in the USAF or USN. Using a percentage doesn't reflect an actual number. Think about it. How about you post numbers.....

Just using common sense.  

If the USAF had 3500 F-4 phantoms in 1979 (approx actual number), and 99% were armed with pistols, the percentage is 99%.  "99%" has nothing to do with a size or quantity, it's a proportion.  If there were five F-4's and 10 aircrew and "99%" had pistols, it's still "99%".  Using a percentage to refelct what should be a quanitity is invalid as support.

You could say, "99% of Army aircrew are armed with psitols" and be just as valid.  

If you want numbers:

The USAF was bigger back then.  It had approximately: 38 F-102, 274 F-106, 600 A-1, 90 A-10's, 170 F-105's, 70 two-place F-105Gs, 329 A-37s, 105 F-16, 380 F-111, 72 FB-111, 19 F-104, 134 F-101, 3500 F-4s, 313 F-15's, 423 F-100s, 435 A-7s, 19 C-47, 160 C-124, 25 C-133, 52 AC-119, 55 C-123, 76 C-5, 284 C-141, 550 C-130s, 6 E-3A, 610 KC-135,75 KC-97, 376 B-52.  I'm sure I missed some, but alot of these were also being retired as the A-10, F-16 and F-15s were being produced, so it's approx for the year, but close enough for ARFCOM work.  That's around 21,000 aircrew.  Let's just say 25,000 aircrew and lets say they're all armed with pistols.  

The US Army had apporx: 2059 OH-58, 3770 UH-1, 16 OH-13, 895 AH-1, 656 CH-47, 425 OH-6, 76 CH-54.  That's just under 21000 aircrew.  We'll use 21,000 as again, it's close enough for ARFCOM.  All of them are likewise armed with pistols.

Now add to that the number of tanks the Army had at the time (each tank has four crew all armed with pistols): 1,610 M-551, 7,295 M60/M728, 2220 M48.  That gives us 44.500 tankers all armed with pistols.

Now add to that number the drivers of the 16,000 M113s and over 13,000 variants of that machine (one driver armed with a pistol) and you have 29,000 there.

Just in vehicle (air and land) crew we have a total of 945,000 Army personel armed with pistols.

That doesn't include the MP's.  Each division having thousands of MPs in it's MP brigade.

That doesn't include staff officers at every level from Battalion up to Theater Army who were armed with pisols.

That doesn't include EVERY M60 machinegunner in all the rifle platoons in the Army.

It's pretty obvious that the number is far larger in the Army than the Air Force.

Think about it.

I don't think anybody "won" the trials for the service pistol.  A submitted pistol met or did not meet the test criterion.  

I am part of the team that works on military trials on behalf of my company and the way it is done is different than what most people think.  BTW I don’t work for a weapon manufacturer but a LAN/WAN hardware designer and manufacturer… not as sexy as weapons.

The way it works is that the military will draw up a set of test criteria for a product.  In the case of the pistol trial I’m sure the criterion was something like this (I’m just making this up):

1. Caliber – 9mm
2. Max weight – 30 ounces unloaded
3. Magazine capacity – minimum 15 rounds
4. Minimum accuracy – 3” for 5 rounds at 25 yards
5. Reliability – Minimum 500 round without failure
6. Barrel life – Minimum 5,000 rounds

Your pistol is tested against each criterion and is given a pass or fail.  If you pass all criterions then your product is considered eligible to bid.  In this process there is no grading system… that means if your pistol shoots 1” group and everybody else shoots 3” group your pistol does not get any extra points.  Same goes for reliability and barrel life part… it either pass or fails.  It also means if you showed up with a 45ACP you didn't get any extra points... you just failed that portion.

At the end of the trial if one or more submitted samples pass all criterions then you are qualified to bid on the government request.  If nobody pass the trial they will sometimes lower the requirements so one or more submitted samples will pass or they may change the criterion and do the trial over again.

Another thing is that for the pistol trial manufacturers knew the order quantity (pistols and spare parts) in advance and they had to submit their quotation (price) up front so they could determine who would win the trial immediately.  Another words, all pistols that passed the trial had their price checked to see who had the lowest price.

Evidently Sig 226 and Beretta 92F both passed the trial but Beretta submitted lower unit price than Sig so Beretta won.

Again, nobody won the trial… just passed.

yobo could not have said it better.

They simple choose the pistol that was the lowest price point. But, both pistols passed the same test and by Army Standards both pistols were equal.





Beretta is better .

Quoted: Beretta is better .

whatever.  I just did my qualification with the M9 last Friday.  The slide cracked and separated during my qualification...sheer luck that it didn't come flying back at me.  Out of a class of 10 shooters, 2 of the M9s were found with cracked slides--mine and one other that was not found until we cleaned the pistols after the class.  

The story about Beretta slides knocking out shooters' teeth is accurate....the rumor of the slides being fixed is not.  I've never heard of a Sig slide cracking.


(BTW, if I got my druthers, I'd carry my 1911)

I was in the Army back in 1985. I did not participate in the trials, but got to see a few XM9 samples. Could not believe that they picked the Beretta. One thing that did figure in that I remember was that the Beretta had an active safety and Sig did not. The Army puts a lot of faith into active safeties due to ignorant service members. And rightfully so. Soldiers and other service members tend to pull triggers and click switches and mess with buttons when they are bored. Fact of life.

The Italian company was also cheaper. Not just on cost. I personally hate the M9 and never did like them even before the trials. But, to each his own.

I also remember the slides cracking and IIRC, at least one Navy member was killed when it lobotomized him. Please don't try to revise history, it does a dis-service to those whom the pistol maimed or killed while wearing the uniform. The skeletonized slide is the M9's weak point. It dates back to the German P-38, which it is loosely based upon.

I personally think the Army should have adopted the double stack 1911 and moved on. Less training and transition and kept a proven cartridge.

What do I know? I'm just a washed up middle-aged former infantryman.

Quoted: Quoted: Beretta is better . whatever.  I just did my qualification with the M9 last Friday.  The slide cracked and separated during my qualification...sheer luck that it didn't come flying back at me.  Out of a class of 10 shooters, 2 of the M9s were found with cracked slides--mine and one other that was not found until we cleaned the pistols after the class.   The story about Beretta slides knocking out shooters' teeth is accurate....the rumor of the slides being fixed is not.  I've never heard of a Sig slide cracking. (BTW, if I got my druthers, I'd carry my 1911)

No luck involved.  All M9's were changed to prevent the slide coming off the frame if it separated.  Same change as the "F" to "FS".  Good to know it works.

Cracked slides have never gone away, but they're very easy to detect long before you'd get a slide failure if your armourer is doing his job.  You've got a problem in your arms room.  

What service?

I also remember the slides cracking and IIRC, at least one Navy member was killed when it lobotomized him. Please don't try to revise history

No one ever died or were lobotomized.  28 stitches and a broken tooth shouldn't happen, but it's not death.

www.thegunzone.com/m9-a.html

Maybe my memory isn't what it once was, but I seem to remember that the Sig lacked one requirement that the Army insisted upon and that was a manual safety.  I'm pretty sure that was the determining factory.  I could be wrong, but that's what I recall.

Quoted:No luck involved.  All M9's were changed to prevent the slide coming off the frame if it separated.  What service?

good to know info....but still, I'm not happy that I'm required to use equipment that has a known deficiency.





USAF, 1988---?  I haven't decided what I'm gonna do when I grow up, so I'm sticking around for awhile longer

Quoted: Quoted:No luck involved.  All M9's were changed to prevent the slide coming off the frame if it separated.  What service? good to know info....but still, I'm not happy that I'm required to use equipment that has a known deficiency. USAF, 1988---?  I haven't decided what I'm gonna do when I grow up, so I'm sticking around for awhile longer

Well atleast beretta slides lock back, and don't really care whether they run wet or dry.

You really think a sig, which is notorious for requiring lots of oil to run properly would really be a better choice?  Plus, how many people would be bitching at the sig for putting their slide lock where it is?  

A bunch of guys coming off of the 1911 who are used to shooting high thumb...good luck.  For all the "issues" that the beretta has, I'm sure the sig would have had just as many, if not more.  Bottom line is, with ANY handgun put in mass circulation like the M9, you're bound to find a few problems here and there.

Quoted: Well atleast beretta slides lock back, and don't really care whether they run wet or dry. You really think a sig, which is notorious for requiring lots of oil to run properly would really be a better choice?  Plus, how many people would be bitching at the sig for putting their slide lock where it is?   A bunch of guys coming off of the 1911 who are used to shooting high thumb...good luck.  For all the "issues" that the beretta has, I'm sure the sig would have had just as many, if not more.  Bottom line is, with ANY handgun put in mass circulation like the M9, you're bound to find a few problems here and there.

dude...haven't you heard? Crack kills!  Step away from the pipe and stop talking things you obviously know very little about.

Sig slides lock back.  True, the release isn't the most ergonomic design ever made....but then again, neither is the slide mounted safety on the M9.   If you had any training at all, you'd know that the most reliable way to chamber a round from slide lock isn't using the slide release anyway.  Pull back on the slide so you get the full effect of the recoil spring.

"I" am one of those guys coming off the 1911, and "I" use a high thumb hold.  Never had a problem shooting my 226.  Come to think of it, I've never had a problem with keeping it running bone dry, either.  



So, what are you?  Internet commando, or just another ?

Quoted: Quoted: Beretta is better . whatever.  I just did my qualification with the M9 last Friday.  The slide cracked and separated during my qualification...sheer luck that it didn't come flying back at me.  Out of a class of 10 shooters, 2 of the M9s were found with cracked slides--mine and one other that was not found until we cleaned the pistols after the class.   The story about Beretta slides knocking out shooters' teeth is accurate....the rumor of the slides being fixed is not.  I've never heard of a Sig slide cracking. (BTW, if I got my druthers, I'd carry my 1911)

Have you ever heard of the 92FS?

Just be quiet.  You have no clue of what you are talking about.  

Quoted: I don't have pics, but the pistols were basically as follows: Ruger P-89 Sig Sauer P226 Walther P-88 Smith and Wesson was their standard double-stack 9mm with slide-mounted decocker/safety.  I can never remember their model #'s on their autos. H&K submitted the P7M13, I believe (though I could be wrong). Don't know about the Steyr and FN entries.

That would be the S&W M59, IIRC.  For Steyr, probably the GB model, which was a nice pistol, but expensive and complicated, as it used a gas-retarded blowback operating mechanism.  The GB was tested by the SEALs, who actually liked the weapon for it's accuracy and performance, but disliked the complexity and price tag.  With FN, it was most likely the FN HP-DA (Browning DA9).  You're right about all the others.  

Quoted: Have you ever heard of the 92FS? Just be quiet.  You have no clue of what you are talking about.

see my previous post.  I learned something about the FS and acknowledged it.  Doesn't mean I'm ever going to trust a pistol that has a known problem with stress cracks.  As for being quiet, unless you plan on educating me with some worthwhile information, please take your own advice.

Sig slides didn't break, they just rusted....which is why they are now Stainless. The Beretta's slides were made of inferior steel which were further weakend by high pressure NATO ammuniton and testing abuse. In my mind, both the Sig and Beretta are equals. They are very similar and both are used all over the world with great success. Preference should be the deciding factor.
That being said, the Beretta M9 should have NEVER won. Beretta was given access to Sig's final bid, which was supposed to be confidential, and they underbid by exactly 1.00. The reason Beretta won is because the Italian gov't put pressure on the United States and threatened to close Aviano AFB. Aviano was, and still is, very strategically significant and stealth capable, thus indespensible. Given that both pistols had a nearly identical record, it wasn't worth the trouble to be fair.
FWIW, I carry/own a Beretta M9, and I like it very much. At the time, I had saved 1k for my handgun and out of everything, I bought the Beretta....to me, not too much is better, well besides Lindsay Lohan.

Quoted: I have a neighbor/friend who is an ex army Major.  He was involved in the tests.  He said the Sig won with the Beretta a close second, but the Beretta was cheaper to fix so the Army went with them.

My supervisor (I was a E-3 in the Armory back then)  was selected to be on the test team for the USAF and shot all the above listed guns and came back with glowing reports about the Beretta 92 and how it was better than all the other pistols.

But hey, he was just a enlisted puke (NCO)  & so was I and this is not info from a "neighbor/friend who is an ex army Major"

Quoted: ...and then the Beretta's stated hitting back, right in the face. For all the Glock KB talk, I find it funny that nobody talkes about Beretta's slide breakage problems.

Whatever, do some research and find out why they "hit back"

Could it be that they were shot with ammo not designed for a pistol, but a sub gun

Quoted: whatever.  I just did my qualification with the M9 last Friday.  The slide cracked and separated during my qualification...sheer luck that it didn't come flying back at me.  Out of a class of 10 shooters, 2 of the M9s were found with cracked slides--mine and one other that was not found until we cleaned the pistols after the class.   The story about Beretta slides knocking out shooters' teeth is accurate....the rumor of the slides being fixed is not.  I've never heard of a Sig slide cracking. (BTW, if I got my druthers, I'd carry my 1911)

Somebody is showing how ignorant they are when it comes to the M9  

Quoted: good to know info....but still, I'm not happy that I'm required to use equipment that has a known deficiency. USAF, 1988---?  I haven't decided what I'm gonna do when I grow up, so I'm sticking around for awhile longer

And what is you're AFSC, I carried the M9 almost daily for about 15 years in the USAF after we got rid of the crappy M15 .38 cal revolver and it was heads and shoulders above the .38

When we transistioned over to the M9 there were lots of officers and senior enlisted who were scared of the M9 and did not understand or like it. I had one Capt who refused to cary it with a round in the chamber as he thought it was dangerous and would go bang.

Try teaching a CATM (no I was not CATM) class to cooks & aircrews, talk about stressfull

Quoted: dude...haven't you heard? Crack kills!  Step away from the pipe and stop talking things you obviously know very little about. Sig slides lock back.  True, the release isn't the most ergonomic design ever made....but then again, neither is the slide mounted safety on the M9.   If you had any training at all, you'd know that the most reliable way to chamber a round from slide lock isn't using the slide release anyway.  Pull back on the slide so you get the full effect of the recoil spring. "I" am one of those guys coming off the 1911, and "I" use a high thumb hold.  Never had a problem shooting my 226.  Come to think of it, I've never had a problem with keeping it running bone dry, either.   So, what are you?  Internet commando, or just another ?

Pot Kettle, Pot Kettle.

Did you know that the M9 is designed to chamber a round using the slide release & not to be pulled back as far as the slide will go.

Not to mention the M9 does not have a slide mounted safety, but a decocker, ya might want to do some research before ya keep putting you're foot into you're mouth. It's primary job is as a decocker, not a safety.

Oh and the 1911 was NOT designed by JMB to have the slide pulled back when chambering the 1st round out of a new mag either. You might want to do some research to find out when/how that all came about.

I'd love to se a Sig function over in the sandbox dry or wet without any problems, it's just not going to happen now is it.

Oh and the Beretta did beat Sig out in the trials, get over the past and live in the now & plan for the future.

Quoted: Sig slides didn't break, they just rusted....which is why they are now Stainless. The Beretta's slides were made of inferior steel which were further weakend by high pressure NATO ammuniton and testing abuse. In my mind, both the Sig and Beretta are equals. They are very similar and both are used all over the world with great success. Preference should be the deciding factor. That being said, the Beretta M9 should have NEVER won. Beretta was given access to Sig's final bid, which was supposed to be confidential, and they underbid by exactly 1.00. The reason Beretta won is because the Italian gov't put pressure on the United States and threatened to close Aviano AFB. Aviano was, and still is, very strategically significant and stealth capable, thus indespensible. Given that both pistols had a nearly identical record, it wasn't worth the trouble to be fair. FWIW, I carry/own a Beretta M9, and I like it very much. At the time, I had saved 1k for my handgun and out of everything, I bought the Beretta....to me, not too much is better, well besides Lindsay Lohan.

Talk about smoking crack      

Dude, you get the best   post in this thread  

Sounds like the M9 is a wonderful firearm. I hear so much about the reliable magazines being issued in the sandbox. All my buddies who have returned from serving with the MP batt here tell me it's a paperweight. I'll just have to run right out and get me a full baker's dozen to carry all week.... Thanks, but I'll stick with my Sig P220.

Sounds like the M9 can injure on both ends of the gun.

I stand corrected on the M9 killing someone from the rear of the slide. I guess having your face ripped off and losing teeth is preferential to dying. Since the slides have some issues cracking or don't, depending on whom you talk with, is that a value added feature rather than a design flaw?

I'll stick with my 1911's, USP45's and Sigs - thank you very much.

Kind of glad I got out when I did.

Quoted: Quoted: Well atleast beretta slides lock back, and don't really care whether they run wet or dry. You really think a sig, which is notorious for requiring lots of oil to run properly would really be a better choice?  Plus, how many people would be bitching at the sig for putting their slide lock where it is?   A bunch of guys coming off of the 1911 who are used to shooting high thumb...good luck.  For all the "issues" that the beretta has, I'm sure the sig would have had just as many, if not more.  Bottom line is, with ANY handgun put in mass circulation like the M9, you're bound to find a few problems here and there. dude...haven't you heard? Crack kills!  Step away from the pipe and stop talking things you obviously know very little about. Sig slides lock back.  True, the release isn't the most ergonomic design ever made....but then again, neither is the slide mounted safety on the M9.   If you had any training at all, you'd know that the most reliable way to chamber a round from slide lock isn't using the slide release anyway.  Pull back on the slide so you get the full effect of the recoil spring. "I" am one of those guys coming off the 1911, and "I" use a high thumb hold.  Never had a problem shooting my 226.  Come to think of it, I've never had a problem with keeping it running bone dry, either.   So, what are you?  Internet commando, or just another ?

I know they lock back.  Mine does too.  It just requires more oil than any other firearm I own to do so.  If you had ANY TRAINING in reading comprehension, you'd realize I never said ANYTHING about  using the slide release to drop a slide.  Nor did I say that the slide mounted safety was in an ideal location on the Beretta.  So please, stop putting words into my mouth, and then insulting them, because all you're doing is insulting yourself, and looking like an idiot.  

I'm glad that you didn't have any issues, but is it hard to see where others who aren't as highly trained and skilled as you may have issues? (yes, thats sarcasm)

As for what I am, thats none of your business.  However, I'll give you this.  I own both, and have shot plenty of both.  I prefer a different system than you, and that is something I do know.  Are you done acting like a five year old because someone doesn't agree with you?  I sure hope so.

At the end of the day, I'd rather be an internet commando or a troll than someone who couldn't master the basic fundamentals of reading in elementary school.

Quoted: Sounds like the M9 is a wonderful firearm. I hear so much about the reliable magazines being issued in the sandbox. All my buddies who have returned from serving with the MP batt here tell me it's a paperweight. I'll just have to run right out and get me a full baker's dozen to carry all week.... Thanks, but I'll stick with my Sig P220. Sounds like the M9 can injure on both ends of the gun. I stand corrected on the M9 killing someone from the rear of the slide. I guess having your face ripped off and losing teeth is preferential to dying. Since the slides have some issues cracking or don't, depending on whom you talk with, is that a value added feature rather than a design flaw? I'll stick with my 1911's, USP45's and Sigs - thank you very much. Kind of glad I got out when I did.

Are those magazines made by Beretta?  

Thank the Government for that one, don't put the blame on Beretta.

Quoted: Are those magazines made by Beretta?   Thank the Government for that one, don't put the blame on Beretta.

We were issued a mix of Beretta, aftermarket and meg-gar mags & they cheap mages sucked azz, but  when ya could find Meg-Gar mags they worked as well as the Beretta mags.

Does the Army still make the MP's carry the M9 with a empty chamber & on "safe"  Never did understand that one as we always carried the M9 with a round in the tube and on fire.

Quoted: I'd love to se a Sig function over in the sandbox dry or wet without any problems, it's just not going to happen now is it.

Ask some of the SEALs who were over there. As I recall, I remember seeing them mostly armed with Mk18s and P226s.

BTW, the SEALs though the slide cracking was enough of a problem to go away from the M9. Luckily for them they have more money than God, so they can buy the more expensive option.

Quoted: Sounds like the M9 is a wonderful firearm. I hear so much about the reliable magazines being issued in the sandbox

The problem isn't with the M9, but with the "lowest bidder" Checkmate magazines DoD bought.

Quoted: yobo could not have said it better. They simple choose the pistol that was the lowest price point. But, both pistols passed the same test and by Army Standards both pistols were equal. Beretta is better .

Yea, everyone knows a huge ass 9mm pistol, with 8K safeties, a super heavy DA trigger and crappy ergos is where it is at!

I don't know about anyone's "buddies" or that infamous "friend of a friend" people love to talk about.

I DO know that I carried an M9 on my hip for a year in Iraq.

I DO know that I never fired a shot in anger, but did test fire it about 6 times - whenever I could get to a range.  Each time I dumped from 10-30 rounds.

Each time I loaded the mag I'd been carrying every day - on two occasions I had neglected to even clean the mag for weeks prior (a big no-no in dusty conditions).

I never once had a single failure - except the one time I failed to seat the mag fully because it caught on the string of my lanyard.

I also know it is an operator responsibilty to PMCS your weapon - if your slide cracked and almost slid off (I don't see how that is possible on an FS, but I digress) you might want to learn how to inspect your equipment better.

Wow,
We were having problems on the range in Mississippi with brand new Checkmate magazines that were dropped in the dirt once.

Quoted: Ask some of the SEALs who were over there. As I recall, I remember seeing them mostly armed with Mk18s and P226s. BTW, the SEALs though the slide cracking was enough of a problem to go away from the M9. Luckily for them they have more money than God, so they can buy the more expensive option.

I was not high speed enough to have ever broken bread with SEALS, but the guys I did see who got to play with the cool toys seemed to all have 1911's

Quoted: Wow, We were having problems on the range in Mississippi with brand new Checkmate magazines that were dropped in the dirt once.

I used only personal mags - all factory Beretta.

Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like the M9 is a wonderful firearm. I hear so much about the reliable magazines being issued in the sandbox The problem isn't with the M9, but with the "lowest bidder" Checkmate magazines DoD bought.

The DoD also bought aftermarket mags for the SEAL P226 at the same time.  The SEAL teams here started having problems with the mags a couple years before OIF, simply because they used their pistols enough to find out earlier than most other combat units.  Because they found out sooner, and have less heirarchy to plow through, they swapped them all out for factory mags quickly.  

When I heard about the mags, I figured some guy was getting creative and swapping out mags (ban was still on) and selling them.  When I heard about the M9 mags a couple years later, everything fell into place.  The DoD fell for the same cheap mag idea most fools do.

Definately a bean counting, money saving effort gone astray that shouldn't reflect on either the Beretta nor the Sig.  The DoD's had bad batches of M16 mags as well (Cooper in the early 80's for one).  Doesn't make the M16 junk.

As most people know, and most of the rest will find out sooner or later, low quality mags are not the way to go.

Well, regardless if the failure to fire results from the M9 itself or the cheap mags, still results in a highly expensive single shot weapon.

All the years I was in the Army, I never had a failure to feed, fire or eject from my standard, beat to death, Vietnam era 1911A1. Cheap mags or not. I probably fired 1000 rounds or so in 4 years. Not a lot, but plenty in peacetime. I probably fired 50,000 through my M16 as an auto-rifleman and more through the M60. We got to go to the range at least every three weeks or so, sometimes more.

Anyway, I'm pretty good friends with a lot of the MP's from the AZ reserve unit here, including the First Sgt of the unit. I sold them a lot of M16 tac slings at a good discount. For what it's worth.

God bless all our guys over there, thanks for all who served and are back. I applaud those who have never had issues with the M9. Cheap mags do not make the firearm bad.

Having played with both the Sig and Beretta for many years I personally thing they are both fine weapons.  Like anything else, if you take care of it and maintaine it they will both work.  If anything, I think the Beretta is more reliable than the Sig if proper magazines are used but Sigs seems to be more accurate and have better trigger.  I could be just as happy with either one.  YMMV



 

Sig/Beretta

I can't think of a finer two pistols to argue about.