I believe that the Army surveyed the soldiers coming back from the Sandbox as to how much they trusted their gear and equipment. While the M4 got thumbs up from the vast majority of GIs, something to the tune of 80% approval, M9 was exactly the opposite. So, it seems that they listened to the soldiers for once, which is a good thing in my book.
That can be a problem when you listen to folks who are not neccessarily SME in handguns. In that specific case, they had issues, but it was not the fault of Beretta. Beretta made magazines function fine, but when the war kicked off, The Army outsourced the purchase of magazines to a company called Checkmate. They were told to place a parkerized finish on the magazine body, which they did. this process dips the entire magazine in the finish, causing a rough textured surface on both the inside and outside.
Now you add the fine talcum san of the ME and viola... failure to feeds up the wazoo. Beretta found out much later what the Army did and testing showed the rough parkerization and sand impede how the rounds move up thru the magazine under the force of the follower and spring.
Follow on magazines did away with the that finish (OEM Beretta Mags are silky smooth on the inside)
I read that whole questionaire, many of them complained of the lack of "Stopping power" as well. As Many troops don't understand terminal ballistics and get there knowledge from Hollywood.
M882 ball sucks on killing people when you get a good shot in the vitals.... now shoot someone in the shoulder, the hip or leg and it makes it worse. And remember, the majority of those questioned who carried a M9, had shit training with a very low minimum standard to meet (5 rds for familarization and 40 rds to qual- once a year)
80%+ of folks in CONUS (FBI stats) shot with a handgun, survive. What does that tell you about the eficacy of handguns and there ability to stop threats.
Take the magazine issue away...... upgrade to the new designed locking block....a good reliable pistol. Hell, that pistol was tested more then any other previous pistol at that time, and tested twice due to litigation.... and came out on top (along with SIG that did very well also) I think the 1911 if tested, would have not done as well.