Why so much hate on the Beretta 92fs/M9?

[Bellehood]

I have quite a bit of experience and training with the M9, and I have seen it perform it's intended use on several occasions, successfully, with Nato ball ammo. That being said, I am not a fan of the gun. When exposed to water and mud, they seem to keep cycling just fine (fort lewis swamp mud to be specific), but when exposed to a little middle eastern sand, they gum up way too fast. Where as an M4 with some CLP and sand mixed together seems to make a nice, muddy lube that will cycle all day long, it shuts an M9 down real quick.

 

[taroman]

Mostly hated cause its not a 1911.

 

[Beefcake]

... when exposed to a little middle eastern sand, they gum up way too fast. Where as an M4 with some CLP and sand mixed together seems to make a nice, muddy lube that will cycle all day long, it shuts an M9 down real quick.

In military terms, isn't a pistol just a tool used temporarily until you can get to a real gun?

 

[Bellehood]

In military terms, isn't a pistol just a tool used temporarily until you can get to a real gun?

Yes and no. While I myself was never in a situation where my only option was an M9, I was with those who were. Medics only have a sidearm for the most part, unless they are doing long, dismounted ops with a unit. SDM/snipers only have an M9 when it comes to indoors/high speed sh1t. So, guys do put their lives on it.

All I'm saying is, I bet the U.S. gov could get a pretty good deal on a few million glock 19's that would far out-perform our M9's, while saving money on any future purchase. That does require the up front purchase, so I understand the hesitation.

 

[Boats]

Yes and no. While I myself was never in a situation where my only option was an M9, I was with those who were. Medics only have a sidearm for the most part, unless they are doing long, dismounted ops with a unit. SDM/snipers only have an M9 when it comes to indoors/high speed sh1t. So, guys do put their lives on it.

All I'm saying is, I bet the U.S. gov could get a pretty good deal on a few million glock 19's that would far out-perform our M9's, while saving money on any future purchase. That does require the up front purchase, so I understand the hesitation.

The Big Army, and the bulk of the USMC for that matter, will never go for the negligent discharge machine known as the Glock.

The reason the M9 doesn't get replaced is because there is nothing on the market that really outperforms it on anything other than weight and durability, neither of which particularly concern Uncle Sugar compared to running and XM-10 trial and rolling out a new pistol system.

Face it, since the JSSAP .45ACP trials were killed, and a PO put in for another 0.5 million M9 and M9A1 pistols, the Beretta is going to soldier on for awhile.

 

[biggie24420]

I had an Italina 92F and I loved how it fit in my hand. It has a lot of history and I like the capacity but the pistol is just too big and heavy for the caliber. I did not like the trigger, did not like the front sight. I am not sure if you can slip a front night sight on but you can replace the rear with a night sight. I did not like the location of the safety/hammer drop. I understand why the slide is the way it is (open top design) but depending on the environment, I think it can be a huge problem. If I had money and I collected a bunch of guns... I would get one for sure, but having to save up to be poor.... I would not get one and sure as heck would not carry one because of the weight.

 

[USMC503]

I can't say if the everyday M9 is a good gun or not, but all the ones I've shot are complete crap. It's hard to say if it's because the guns themselves are bad, or just cuz the Marine Corps has pack rat tendencies and hates to let stuff go, even if it is broken.

All the M9s I've shot had loose, wobbly, slides and you couldn't shoot a good grouping for your life. I strongly suspect this is not unusual.