Suppressors why no beretta love?

#51
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nw1911guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

....
So There! Nyeah, nyeah nyeah
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
</div></div>

The M16 was another fine example of 'politickin as well. </div></div>

Yeah, because even back then I was shouting for something better. Like a piston driven/gas gun. And a better caliber....
 
#53
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: soleus123</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Beretta is a work of art.</div></div>

Yeah??....but, what does it mean?
wink.gif


Edit:

On second thought, that is a good place for it. Either hanging on a wall or half melted into a sculpture of some sort.
 
#54
Re: why no beretta love?

sandwarrior i apreciate you opinion and like the feed back but to be honest you sound like a 5 year old asked to clean his room and all you can say is i dont wanna i understand the 9mm was force fed to the troops back in the early 80's and you said Most soldiers who were in at the time didn't even get the chance to say anything before the order came down, "You will now carry a 9mm." i am sorry but when i was in the army we diddnt get a choice or a say in what we wore,ate,living conditions and we sure as hell diddnt get a choice in the firarms we wanted we did what were were told when we were told to do it
 
#55
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sandwarrior i apreciate you opinion and like the feed back <span style="font-weight: bold">but to be honest you sound like a 5 year old <span style="text-decoration: line-through">asked</span> <span style="font-style: italic">told</span> to clean his room and all you can say is i dont wanna </span>i understand the 9mm was force fed to the troops back in the early 80's and you said Most soldiers who were in at the time didn't even get the chance to say anything before the order came down, "You will now carry a 9mm." i am sorry but when i was in the army we diddnt get a choice or a say in what we wore,ate,living conditions and we sure as hell diddnt get a choice in the firarms we wanted we did what were were told when we were told to do it </div></div>

You're right on that count. However, there were a lot of top officers who were against it as well. You know, the people who make the decisions? ...Not getting to make the decisions. It happens enough that anyone involved in the military should know and get used to it no matter what grade you are.

The big difference for me was that I left the service in 1985. At which point, it makes it "MY CHOICE" to carry what I want. During the next four years of contact with friends who remained in I didn't hear much good about it. And for good reason. In 1989 was when the Army balked at taking them anymore unless they got the problems worked out. So, I'm not the only kid who didn't want to 'clean his room'. I'm not a fan of 9mm. I've seen enough SWAT teams train with them, .40 and .45 and I'll tell you that actually the .40 is the best of the bunch. It didn't even exist back when I got out. And, after a lot of testing it has proven to be the best and that's why the vast majority of LE departments use some version of the .40 as their service weapon.

Another thing. Why is the Military saddled with the M9 when all civilian entities carry the Glock 19? In 9mm of course.

Back to the original title of the post: The OP asked "why no love for the Beretta", plain and simple. The M9 started life on the wrong foot. You can't deny that. Second it's not my first choice of round if I had to carry in combat. I carry something else out here in the civilian world. So, I'm telling you why I don't like it. No amount of telling me how good it is when I have something now, in my hands, that will beat it, is going to change my mind.

As for choice, you're almost completely right in that MOST everyone in the service doesn't get a whole lot of them. But, when things involve your life and limb and you get to have a choice? I'd prefer to go with what I've seen tested to be the best.
 
#56
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sandwarrior i apreciate you opinion and like the feed back <span style="font-weight: bold">but to be honest you sound like a 5 year old <span style="text-decoration: line-through">asked</span> <span style="font-style: italic">told</span> to clean his room and all you can say is i dont wanna </span>i understand the 9mm was force fed to the troops back in the early 80's and you said Most soldiers who were in at the time didn't even get the chance to say anything before the order came down, "You will now carry a 9mm." i am sorry but when i was in the army we diddnt get a choice or a say in what we wore,ate,living conditions and we sure as hell diddnt get a choice in the firarms we wanted we did what were were told when we were told to do it </div></div>

You're right on that count. However, there were a lot of top officers who were against it as well. You know, the people who make the decisions? ...Not getting to make the decisions. It happens enough that anyone involved in the military should know and get used to it no matter what grade you are.

The big difference for me was that I left the service in 1985. At which point, it makes it "MY CHOICE" to carry what I want. During the next four years of contact with friends who remained in I didn't hear much good about it. And for good reason. In 1989 was when the Army balked at taking them anymore unless they got the problems worked out. So, I'm not the only kid who didn't want to 'clean his room'. I'm not a fan of 9mm. I've seen enough SWAT teams train with them, .40 and .45 and I'll tell you that actually the .40 is the best of the bunch. It didn't even exist back when I got out. And, after a lot of testing it has proven to be the best and that's why the vast majority of LE departments use some version of the .40 as their service weapon.

Another thing. Why is the Military saddled with the M9 when all civilian entities carry the Glock 19? In 9mm of course.

Back to the original title of the post: The OP asked "why no love for the Beretta", plain and simple. The M9 started life on the wrong foot. You can't deny that. Second it's not my first choice of round if I had to carry in combat. I carry something else out here in the civilian world. So, I'm telling you why I don't like it. No amount of telling me how good it is when I have something now, in my hands, that will beat it, is going to change my mind.

As for choice, you're almost completely right in that MOST everyone in the service doesn't get a whole lot of them. But, when things involve your life and limb and you get to have a choice? I'd prefer to go with what I've seen tested to be the best. </div></div>

fair enough like i said before i do like the feedback
 
#58
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i am not under the illusion thinking the 92 pistols are the best at anything i just dont think they get the credit they deserve</div></div>

Copy that. This post also shows that a number of people DO like the M9. So, once the issues got worked out with it, it may well be the pistol people would use as a go-to gun. Meaning: I may have my opinions but, I'm not always right, either.
 
#59
Re: why no beretta love?

I personally have never shot another handgun as well as I do a Berreta M9 or 92, maybe it's just me, my hand type or who knows, it just happens to be a fact with me. Doesnt matter if im running a 3,000 dollar race gun or the 600 dollar 92, I shoot the 92 better, go figure.......
 
#61
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'm not always right, either.
</div></div>
Well, you said it!!!
grin.gif
 
#62
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sandwarrior if you are ever in my neck of the woods you are more than welcome to shoot my 92 elite just for giggles</div></div>

I would...but, I'd probably like it!
wink.gif
grin.gif
Thank you, I'll take you up on that.

And the same goes for you. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, give me a holler and we can test my CZ's, SA mil-spec (the nice one, not the GI) that's had some things added and done. And of course, everyones favorite, the High Standard Military H-D, circa 1946. We have plenty of .22's of various vintages you'd like as well.
 
#63
Re: why no beretta love?

Are they accurate and do I shoot it well in a static setting? Yes. But as much as I like to do well on qual day thats not what I need a pistol for.

The grips are too wide wide for my hands. I've got smaller hands.

I'm part of the crowd that goes to an overhand rack for everything - reloads, malfunctions, etc. It's something that just drilled into my head and when I get my hand up on that open slide I'm just not comfortable with it. What makes this even more of a problem is the slide mounted safety. It just takes up so much area on a slide that doesn't have much area to give up. Where this really becomes a problem for me is getting my hand back too far and unknowingly engaging the safety and then try to reengage the target.

Another thing with the slide mounted safety is bumping into anything while holstered and flipping the safety. This was such a problem that it became an uncontious thing to constantly check my safety. So much so that I still find myself doing it with my HK (the HK safety doesn't move unless I move it).

Oooooh! Another thing with the frame mounted safety, as with my previously noted small hands, there is just no quick and efficient way for me to disengage the safety while unholstering.

I have had a barrel crack on me. On my reserve weekends my unit works at an armory that rebuilds service weapons. We were test firing rebuilt M9s (barrel had been checked for cracks) and after the seventh round it went back into battery real funny. Why did it break? Who knows, it could have been amo or anything. I don't blame the M9 but it doesn't make me feel any better about it.

When I pick up an M9 it doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. It doesn't even feel comfortable in my hands. It doesn't work with the way I like to work a gun. Luckily I've never been in a situation where I've needed to use it to defend myself. Unfortunately, I see another deployment in my future so there is still the chance I will. Until then I'll still carry my HK.

PS: I know a few of these can be cleared up with more and continued training, but it just doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. And thats all I really want in a pistol is warm and fuzzy.
 
#64
Re: why no beretta love?

i have never carried a pistol profesionally or as a ccw my question is would a slide mounted safety ie 92fs engage/disengage any more often that a frame mounted safety ie 1911 ?
 
#65
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have never carried a pistol profesionally or as a ccw my question is would a slide mounted safety ie 92fs engage/disengage any more often that a frame mounted safety ie 1911 ?</div></div>

I could only see it being a problem if it was shaped so that it stuck out and was prone to catch on things. I've even heard the same complaint to a much smaller degree about the 1911. I've never had the problem. Most people carry their 1911's 'cocked and locked' in the holster, if they carry. In which case it could be really bad if knocking it off safe when drawing.

I've never had my 1911, CZ 75's or CZ-40P (favorite) get knocked out of position.

Edit: The CZ-40P and one -75 are decockers. The other -75 has the safety.
 
#66
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have never carried a pistol profesionally or as a ccw my question is would a slide mounted safety ie 92fs engage/disengage any more often that a frame mounted safety ie 1911 ?</div></div> My issue with a slide mounted safety is while sling-shotting the slide, whether during a reload or during immediate action, you have to be conscious of not manipulating the weapon onto safe. This is an issue with shooters who are new to the M9 or don't train to the proper technique.

Any weapon with a manual safety can have it unintentionally manipulated to the other position at some point. This is the reason pretty much all handguns have multiple safeties built into them including the 1911 and M9.
 
#67
Re: why no beretta love?

Well first of all, I'll say off the bat that I do like the 92/M9. I have over a dozen of them and have carried them on duty and CCW and used them in competition. I currently carry a G19 for duty and CCW mainly because of the size (and that is what they gave me
wink.gif
).

That said, the M9 slide fractures never killed anyone, one or two guys got chipped/missing teeth and a couple stitches but that was the extent of it. The design wasn't faulty the steel in the slide was. Beretta corrected/replaced the affected slides and modified the rest to "FS" by adding the catch to the hammer pin. You're right though, this left a bad taste in many people's mouths that persists today although to a much lesser degree. SF and special units notwithstanding, there are VERY few of any people left in the military that even remember the 1911 so that has helped lessen the number of people who complain about it. The ones that do are generally either shooters who prefer the .45 anyway or are repeating crap their DI said 15 years ago.

Something that hasn’t been mentioned is how well the pistol has performed over the past 10 years in IRQ/AFG. Currently in the military there are more pistols issued per unit than ever before and the percentage of active combatants with real trigger time is also at an all time high. With those numbers taken into account and the overall positive opinion of the gun it’s hard to dispute that it really is a respectable choice. Of the problems that have occurred, the overwhelming majority can be traced directly back to the (check-mate and Airtronic) magazines. The soldier knows this and it’s reflected in a recent satisfaction survey conducted by the Army concerning issued equipment. Overall the Beretta scored very well while the magazines were singled out as a problem. The Army has responded by requiring modified magazines to be developed and delivered (how this was cheaper than buying real Beretta mags I don’t know). Are there still parts breakages? Of course, if it can be broken a soldier will but is it epidemic? Far from. Many if not most of the M9’s I’ve seen, while looking all the worse for wear, are in sound mechanical condition and many are still using factory original parts from the 80’s. I’n my opinion this speaks very well to the design.

Are there better pistols out there for the job? Probably. Were they available in 1983? No. All of the guns that were tested against it failed to match its performance save the SIG 226 (which was relatively equal) and none could match price and support. For those not aware, some of the guns tested in the M9/M10 trial were submitted by the following: Beretta, Colt, Styer, S&W, HK, and Walther. They were repeatedly tested under identical conditions with the same or similar results; this is what scientists call proof. At this stage in the game some 25 years on the simple fact of the matter is, just like the M4/M16, it performs too well and would cost too much to replace to justify the expense.

People always use the 9mm v. .45 argument when talking about the M9 but if you look deeper into the reasoning for the M9/M10 trials you will find that it was far more than that. The Beretta was actually chosen to replace not just the 1911 but no fewer than 25 pistols using in the neighborhood of 100 types of ammunition. It was a standardization issue as much as anything not only with NATO but within the US as well. And it really only makes sense to go with the 9mm. The caliber itself is the most widely used pistol round in the world (save maybe the .22lr) and has served countless soldiers well since its inception in 1901. It may not be the most powerful but it does an admirable job at filling the role it was designed for; keeping people’s heads down and allowing one to fight to a long gun.

Ok I just realized that I babbled for a hell of a long time. Bottom line is that the Beretta is a good gun and always has been. There have been bumps in the road but for now and the foreseeable future it’s what we’ve got. Oh, and AFA the safety is concerned, the original 92 had a frame mounted safety and it was later moved to the slide to provide for the decock option. The original Taurus PT92 was an exact copy of a Beretta 92 and has since been modified into the variants we see today.
 
#69
Re: why no beretta love?

While true that current pistol issue and use is very high compared to years in the recent past, I would not equate some of that with true proficient skill and handling.
Many regular forces simply get (barely) enough training to qualify. Pistols, like many other weapon systems downrange, spend alot of their time unloaded (which, in and of itself is bizarre but an entirely different topic) much less being fired.
Comparing the M9 to a model that can actually take the pounding of extensive use, and, well, there isn't an issue among those who actually use pistols for combat. Other models are selected.
 
#70
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have never carried a pistol profesionally or as a ccw my question is would a slide mounted safety ie 92fs engage/disengage any more often that a frame mounted safety ie 1911 ?</div></div>

As far as the slide mounted safety one of the bigger problems is its ambidextrious. If the safety is exposed while in the holster and you bump into something the right way (more often than not) it will flip. Could this have been more of an issue with my issued weapon than others? Possibly. Next time I get a chance I will play with the safeties on some and see how they feel. On my EDC its a frame mounted safety and it rest against a piece of the holster. That and it takes more than an accidental nudge to disengage.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something that hasn&#146;t been mentioned is how well the pistol has performed over the past 10 years in IRQ/AFG. Currently in the military there are more pistols issued per unit than ever before and the percentage of active combatants with real trigger time is also at an all time high. With those numbers taken into account and the overall positive opinion of the gun it&#146;s hard to dispute that it really is a respectable choice. Of the problems that have occurred, the overwhelming majority can be traced directly back to the (check-mate and Airtronic) magazines. The soldier knows this and it&#146;s reflected in a recent satisfaction survey conducted by the Army concerning issued equipment. Overall the Beretta scored very well while the magazines were singled out as a problem. The Army has responded by requiring modified magazines to be developed and delivered (how this was cheaper than buying real Beretta mags I don&#146;t know). Are there still parts breakages? Of course, if it can be broken a soldier will but is it epidemic? Far from. Many if not most of the M9&#146;s I&#146;ve seen, while looking all the worse for wear, are in sound mechanical condition and many are still using factory original parts from the 80&#146;s. I&#146;n my opinion this speaks very well to the design.</div></div>

Although the M9 has performed reliably in OIF/OEF and the general service member is happy with it I don't believe that should be a guage for slapping a gold star on it and going our merry way. There are better pistols out there now and after 25 years it might be time to find a new one.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are there better pistols out there for the job? Probably. Were they available in 1983? No. All of the guns that were tested against it failed to match its performance save the SIG 226 (which was relatively equal) and none could match price and support. For those not aware, some of the guns tested in the M9/M10 trial were submitted by the following: Beretta, Colt, Styer, S&W, HK, and Walther. They were repeatedly tested under identical conditions with the same or similar results; this is what scientists call proof. At this stage in the game some 25 years on the simple fact of the matter is, just like the M4/M16, it performs too well and would cost too much to replace to justify the expense.</div></div>

The XM9 trials, like many other iterations of military testing, can be shown as flawed to say the least. Although the Air Force origianlly aproved the M9 the Army took over and retested everything upon which all subjects failed. Congress was furious, withheld funding for more .45 ammo, and everything was retested with less stringent standards. The M9 and the Sig passed the test, Sig was contraversially under bid, and Beretta was awarded the contract.

After the quality issues arose XM10 was started and more contraqversy insued. Need more proof of the outstanding capabilites and possible politicking in military trials check out the Army ACU's.

This is where I got my information on the XM9 trials. I'm sure there is more supporting evidence out there but I'm too lazy to look for it now.

http://www.coolgunsite.com/comm_pistols/beretta92.htm

Being a self proclaimed HK Fanboy I feel I must add that the HK P7M13 only failed the saltwater testing. I could go on and on about the merits and brilliance of the P7 series but I honestly feel its a pistol thats not for everyone. Being in a non combat unit I know the type of idiots that get issued pistols.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok I just realized that I babbled for a hell of a long time. Bottom line is that the Beretta is a good gun and always has been. There have been bumps in the road but for now and the foreseeable future it&#146;s what we&#146;ve got.</div></div>

Does it work? Yes, I won't deny that. But there are better pistols out now and its time to find a new one. But if that happens, in 20 years people will be back here arguing about that gun also. You can't please everyone. (God don't let it be a Glock
sick.gif
).
 
#71
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shooter5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While true that current pistol issue and use is very high compared to years in the recent past, I would not equate some of that with true proficient skill and handling.
Many regular forces simply get (barely) enough training to qualify. Pistols, like many other weapon systems downrange, spend alot of their time unloaded (which, in and of itself is bizarre but an entirely different topic) much less being fired.
Comparing the M9 to a model that can actually take the pounding of extensive use, and, well, there isn't an issue among those who actually use pistols for combat. <span style="font-weight: bold">Other models are selected.</span></div></div>

Thank you, I know my information is very old (26-7 years) but that's how it started. I see a lot of newer operator types going with something besides the M9 as well.
 
#72
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bjdm151</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Being a self proclaimed HK Fanboy I feel I must add that the HK P7M13 only failed the saltwater testing. I could go on and on about the merits and brilliance of the P7 series but I honestly feel its a pistol thats not for everyone. </div></div>

The metal trigger is, presumably NOT one of the "merits and brilliance".
 
#73
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally have never shot another handgun as well as I do a Berreta M9 or 92, maybe it's just me, my hand type or who knows, it just happens to be a fact with me. Doesnt matter if im running a 3,000 dollar race gun or the 600 dollar 92, I shoot the 92 better, go figure....... </div></div>

i want so bad to dislike berettas because i prefer 1911's but i cant deny they just freakin shoot good. its the only 9mm ill ever own.
 
#74
Re: why no beretta love?

I loved my 92FS. Haven't been able to shoot anything as well. I really need to go back and buy another.

The safety never really bothered me, nor the DA (for the most part). I'm a lefty and I got to where I could use the thumb on my right hand to flip the safety and cock the hammer while I was going from a draw to getting my sight picture. Basically just rake the thumb up and over while you are getting a grip. Anyhow, worked for me. Your mileage may vary...

The only issue I ever had was when a comp specifically called for shooting with a single hand. But then you deal with it.
 
#75
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bjdm151</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Being a self proclaimed HK Fanboy I feel I must add that the HK P7M13 only failed the saltwater testing. I could go on and on about the merits and brilliance of the P7 series but I honestly feel its a pistol thats not for everyone. Being in a non combat unit I know the type of idiots that get issued pistols.
</div></div>

The P7 is an absolutely brilliant design. It's too bad that they can't figure out a way to get the slide to cycle slower so that it can be a truly effective fighting pistol.

I loved carrying the P7, but I hated shooting it.

I will also admit that I absolutely hate HK with a passion, but I give them credit where it's due. The P7 has a lot of great features and a nice, low bore axis. It's reliable and has a great trigger and is very safe. The problems are limited to its blowback-esque operation.
 
#76
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bjdm151</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Being a self proclaimed HK Fanboy I feel I must add that the HK P7M13 only failed the saltwater testing. I could go on and on about the merits and brilliance of the P7 series but I honestly feel its a pistol thats not for everyone. Being in a non combat unit I know the type of idiots that get issued pistols.
</div></div>

The P7 is an absolutely brilliant design. It's too bad that they can't figure out a way to get the slide to cycle slower so that it can be a truly effective fighting pistol.

I loved carrying the P7, but I hated shooting it.

I will also admit that I absolutely hate HK with a passion, but I give them credit where it's due. The P7 has a lot of great features and a nice, low bore axis. It's reliable and has a great trigger and is very safe. The problems are limited to its blowback-esque operation.</div></div>

Thats cool. I hate Glock with a passion.

The P7 Gas system is actually a gas delay which further adds to its accuracy. There is a gas port in the barrel that goes into a cylinder which houses a piston attatched to the slide (in the bottom of the sea). The gas pushes against the piston and delays the slide from moving until the bullet exits the barrel and the gas pressure is relieved.

I think where most people get hung up on the P7 is that its so different from most standard pistols. It just takes time to get figure it out.

But I digress. Back to M9's.
 
#77
Re: why no beretta love?

As a military combat pistol, the Beretta M9/92 series is far superior to the issued or custom 1911s.
I was a 4th award pistol expert with the 1911A1s while in the marines, and qualified with the first batch with the M9's. The M9 was much, much easier to get hits with on any target, and you had twice the capacity. They actuall had to make the qualification much much harder with the M9 that the 1911 because the marksmen and unqs would have scored expert on the same course of fire. I can't tell you how many times I saw guys hitting the metal stands 2 feet or more under the target, or actually hitting the dirt in front with a 1911. It just didn't point naturally, and inexperienced shooters had lots of trouble. Some never got the hang of it.
With the M9 the # of hits, and good ones, went way up on a harder course. If it gets so bad that you need a pistol in military combat you want something you will hit a guy with, and with the M9, even under great pressure, you will, and lots of times even without reloading. With the M1911 many wouldn't hit a charging target even once.
I could shoot a 1911, but many couldn't. If my life came down to having one or the other, it would be the Beretta. As for 9mm, well, it's not a .45, but you can shoot them lots of times with a 9mm and that's good too. If the choice is one shot in the foot or 5 in the torso, I'll take the 5.
And with the decock safety and the double action on the M9, there are lots less ADs for the Gate Guards, I'm sure.
 
#78
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donttrytorun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a military combat pistol, the Beretta M9/92 series is far superior to the issued <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">or custom 1911s</span></span></span>.
I was a 4th award pistol expert with the 1911A1s while in the marines, and qualified with the first batch with the M9's. The M9 was much, much easier to get hits with on any target, and you had twice the capacity. They actuall had to make the qualification much much harder with the M9 that the 1911 because the marksmen and unqs would have scored expert on the same course of fire. I can't tell you how many times I saw guys hitting the metal stands 2 feet or more under the target, or actually hitting the dirt in front with a 1911. It just didn't point naturally, and inexperienced shooters had lots of trouble. Some never got the hang of it.
With the M9 the # of hits, and good ones, went way up on a harder course. If it gets so bad that you need a pistol in military combat you want something you will hit a guy with, and with the M9, even under great pressure, you will, and lots of times even without reloading. With the M1911 many wouldn't hit a charging target even once.
I could shoot a 1911, but many couldn't. If my life came down to having one or the other, it would be the Beretta. As for 9mm, well, it's not a .45, but you can shoot them lots of times with a 9mm and that's good too. If the choice is one shot in the foot or 5 in the torso, I'll take the 5.
And with the decock safety and the double action on the M9, there are lots less ADs for the Gate Guards, I'm sure.</div></div>

HUH?? I'll go out on a limb here and say you don't have a clue what you are talking about if you say an 'issued' M9 is better than a fully customized 1911.

Maybe the lower recoil of the 9mm can help hit better than the .45. I will say that with the people that I've worked with it's almost always much more of a mental thing. When you get hold of a custom 1911 and how it fits the hand during shooting, I like them a LOT better.
 
#80
Re: why no beretta love?

There's nothing overly wrong with the 92's, they're just way too big for a 9mm.

I trained with and carried an 87 for a bit, and still do sometimes because the Cheetah is my hands-down favorite.
 
#81
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's nothing overly wrong with the 92's, they're just way too big for a 9mm.

I trained with and carried an 87 for a bit, and still do sometimes because the Cheetah is my hands-down favorite.</div></div>

The M9/92 is a holster gun, not intended for concealed carry. No double stack mag would feel comfortable in the small of the back. The 1911 sits there and you don't even remember it's on you sometines. That flat stack and slide are great for that, especially the short barrel/slide ones.

"Combat" to me means Military out of the armorer box weapons in the hands of 20 year olds with minimal pistol training, most likely limited to a famfire and amybe a single or at most twice qualification. The out of the box 1911's were tough, and it would take a lot of customization, basically redesigning the pistol and the way it fits the hand, to make it as easy a pistol to shoot for a neophyte or average shooter as the M9/92 series is. "Combat" to me isn't shooting tin with a timer going, or even some civvy street hoodlum confrontation. To me, it's "Combat". The M9 is much better for 90%+ of the guys who need a pistol for that.
 
#82
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All depends on what your definition of better is? Take a fully custom 1911 in a combat enviorenment; and let me know how that goes for you?</div></div>

I haven't, but have several friends who have....and it went well for them.

Again, you wanna stand there and defend the M9 you're shitting in your own shoes telling me how good it is.... Sorry, it's just not "all that" and certainly not "then some".
 
#83
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donttrytorun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's nothing overly wrong with the 92's, they're just way too big for a 9mm.

I trained with and carried an 87 for a bit, and still do sometimes because the Cheetah is my hands-down favorite.</div></div>

The M9/92 is a holster gun, not intended for concealed carry. No double stack mag would feel comfortable in the small of the back. The 1911 sits there and you don't even remember it's on you sometines. That flat stack and slide are great for that, especially the short barrel/slide ones.

"Combat" to me means Military out of the armorer box weapons in the hands of 20 year olds with minimal pistol training, most likely limited to a famfire and amybe a single or at most twice qualification. The out of the box 1911's were tough, and it would take a lot of customization, basically redesigning the pistol and the way it fits the hand, to make it as easy a pistol to shoot for a neophyte or average shooter as the M9/92 series is. "Combat" to me isn't shooting tin with a timer going, or even some civvy street hoodlum confrontation. To me, it's "Combat". The M9 is much better for 90%+ of the guys who need a pistol for that.</div></div>

I never had a problem qualifying with the worn out old POS's that we had back in the early '80's to qualify expert with one. The problem is women flinch with them far worse. I run into that problem regularly now. Yes, better to go with a 9mm as recoil is less and can be handled. Certainly, don't go with a .380 (9mm Short or Kurz) as most guns built for them are light and kick.

Like I said, I'll give you that the 9mm doesn't kick as bad. But I also have seen through many SWAT training days how it has much less knockdown. It's definitely a double-tapper when the .45 is a "once-and-go". If the average 20 something shoots the dirt in front of a bad guy, then yeah I'd take the nine as he can put more in the body. But, for the guy who CAN shoot a .45...there isn't hardly a comparison.
 
#84
Re: why no beretta love?

I never had any problems with my 92FS or any of the Army's M9's. I have fired 840 rounds in my 92FS and turned the barrel a lil light gray looking color. Now I have a M9A1 and I like the rail and the lil more weight that was added. One thing I dont like about the new 92 series is the plasic guide rod. Still dont understand why they did that. Seen the 25th ann. M9 today and wanted really bad however I have other needs right now. I hope the shop is able to get a hold of another one cause I will get it a lil later if there is any still out there. One thing I have really noticed is the M9 holds up better than the Sig 226 that has to say something about the M9.
 
#85
Re: why no beretta love?

Wow, there are some deep, deep unresolved issues and massive chips on some shoulders here. ACUs, F4 Phantoms, M16s and M9s.
There have been problems discovered with everything the Military adopts, and mods done throughout their lives. remember the P-51 Mustang? Non-turbocharged Allison engine on the A mod was so bad the British declined the plane and stuck with the P-40. Guns on the B and C models would jam without any high G activity by the pilot, and guys would have no guns, or maybe only one outboard firing while in a dogfight. Try having only one .50 firing way out on a wing and see how that slews you around. Malcolm hood for improved visibility until the bubble canopy, (D model)which required a ventral fin to be added. No fuselage tank initially, Then no baffles in it, and you still had to burn off fuel because when full it screwed up the center of gravity and you would stall in a turn. The American spark plugs would foul on taxiing (causing aborts), and they had to sustitute lots of expensive platinum tipped British ones (when available). Then the wheels would crack open on the D model while in flight, causing the gear to be pulled down and twisted off, along with a wing.
And there never seemed to be enough long rang tanks to go around. So few in fact, that the Tuskegee airmen actually held up a train and stole enough to get them to Berlin.
Yes, the P-51 was the best Fighter of WW II, eventually, when they came out with the M model, which never saw service in Combat, even in Korea, because some guys just wouldn't trust anthing but a old D.
And by the way, for you who complain you can't reach the safety on a M9. Sorry, it wasn't designed for girl hands.
 
#86
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donttrytorun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's nothing overly wrong with the 92's, they're just way too big for a 9mm.

I trained with and carried an 87 for a bit, and still do sometimes because the Cheetah is my hands-down favorite.</div></div>

The M9/92 is a holster gun, not intended for concealed carry. No double stack mag would feel comfortable in the small of the back. The 1911 sits there and you don't even remember it's on you sometines. That flat stack and slide are great for that, especially the short barrel/slide ones.

"Combat" to me means Military out of the armorer box weapons in the hands of 20 year olds with minimal pistol training, most likely limited to a famfire and amybe a single or at most twice qualification. The out of the box 1911's were tough, and it would take a lot of customization, basically redesigning the pistol and the way it fits the hand, to make it as easy a pistol to shoot for a neophyte or average shooter as the M9/92 series is. "Combat" to me isn't shooting tin with a timer going, or even some civvy street hoodlum confrontation. To me, it's "Combat". The M9 is much better for 90%+ of the guys who need a pistol for that.</div></div>

If the average 20 something shoots the dirt in front of a bad guy, then yeah I'd take the nine as he can put more in the body. But, for the guy who CAN shoot a .45...there isn't hardly a comparison. </div></div>

The average guy who actually needs a pistol in Military Combat is a 20ish Soldier or Marine who has limited opprtunity to shoot them. Comparing them to a 40+ civilian shooter with thousands of rounds downrange, one on one training, and decades of experience isn't a fair comparison. It was only months before somebody had to teach them left from right, to tie their shoes properly, and how to make their racks properly. The average soldier or marine has much more (but not enough) experience with their shoulder weapon than a pistol. personally, i never fired a rifle or pistol before I enlisted. I just had a talent for it, and I applied the fundamentals like religion.
 
#87
Re: why no beretta love?

The Mustang the best?! No Way! Albeit a good system and it turned its share of Nazi thugs into dirt-nappers but if you wanted to Fight, Brawl and Survive and have superior stats, give me the JUG!
 
#88
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donttrytorun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, there are some deep, deep unresolved issues and massive chips on some shoulders here. ACUs, F4 Phantoms, M16s and M9s.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

And by the way, for you who complain you can't reach the safety on a M9. Sorry, it wasn't designed for girl hands. </div></div>

Hey Chewbacca, Who asked anything about an airplane?
 
#91
Re: why no beretta love?

I used the F4 as a comparison in military buying of hardware. The fact that some bean counter makes decisions not based on real world need. You don't have all your facts straight either on the P-51. But, it's issues aren't really pertinent to this thread. What pertains to this thread though, is yes, modifications can be made to make that weapon/tool/model effective. Judging by how many people stand by the M9, that may well have been done. I for one won't start liking it just because someone says so.

My two points for not liking the M9 are:

a) It's a 9mm. I feel it's less effective than the .45.
We've gone the route of "more less effective rounds are better
before"
b) When it started life it had shoddy QC. Slides were breaking. In one of the links given by another member those slides never started breaking until 1987...with thousands and thousands of rounds. I know for a fact that in the fall of 1984 we had MP's being issued NEW 9mm's as their standard sidearm. This is where I got my information about the slides breaking at the Aberdeen proving grounds in Maryland. Not the SEAL story. I never heard the SEAL story until now. The person supposedly killed was a civilian, not military. There were military people hurt as well. I heard that in 1984/1985, not 1987. Like the links gave a time frame of.

I then read an article in about 1989/1990 stating that the Army was extremely displeased with the quality control of the M9 and said "They will improve or they will be gone". The links given tended to corroborate that story. So, if the Army went that far I would say they were having serious issues with the weapon. Probably more so than you and I will get to read on the internet.

As far as our training during the time, we used 9mm's and .45's for MOUT type training. My reasoning for not liking the 9mm as much was it simply did not have the power as the .45 Remember, this is training, not combat. But that stuck with me. In the times that I have observed SWAT type training by various departments, I see the same thing. A kill shot by a 9mm takes more precision than a .45. A .45 is, I think, a better 'center-mass' pistol round. We had access to Browning Hi-powers, 1911's and 22's. We also did 'dry runs' with BB guns. My personal preference was a hi-cap (10 rd) mag in a .45. I think the pistol is better in close spaces than even the shortest carbine. Simply put, it's more maneuverable. And it's effective to pretty much as far as you will shoot inside a building. Note, that when I say someone who CAN shoot a .45 I'm not talking about a 40+ competitor type. I'm talking about a 23-33 yr old spec-ops/operator type (because they have access to .45's still). I also knew plenty of NCO's over in the 24th ID and Dollar 97th in Benning that could shoot .45's very well. And teach how to shoot them well.

And, FWIW, I don't think that ANYONE can be turned loose with any pistol and be effective with it. Even a .22. It flat out takes good instruction and good habits being built to use one well. Way more than a rifle.

So, when all the arguing is said and done, I'm not going to just go out and like the M9 because someone told me to. Got it yet?
 
#92
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not going to just go out and like the M9 because someone told me to.</div></div>Well said.
 
#93
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
b) When it started life it had shoddy QC. </div></div>
False, slide and locking block issues didn't arise until the M9s were made here. Those few failures were directly related to the miscalibration of the heat treating ovens! It's a free country; do what you want buy what you want, just don't pass around stuff on heresey just because your friends told you so....causes credibility issues!
 
#94
Re: why no beretta love?

Nothing particularly wrong with the 92. Its a full size, hi-cap 9mm. Not the first choice for CC. Since the first 92 back in the early 80's theres has been at least 1 or 2 other brands to apply the same idea of a hi-cap 9mm pistol. Glock 17, Sig 226, Springfield XD9/XDm9, HK USP9, Ruger P89...ect. The list goes on. The polymer framed pistols are more popular because 15+ rounds of 9mm isnt light, and when you carry one for work, every bit counts. I have experience with all the listed pistols above, including the 92, and all worked flawlessly, and accurately.
 
#95
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

b) When it started life it had shoddy QC. </div></div>

False, slide and locking block issues didn't arise until the M9s were made here. Those few failures were directly related to the miscalibration of the heat treating ovens! It's a free country; do what you want buy what you want, just don't pass around stuff on heresey just because your friends told you so....causes credibility issues!</div></div>

Funny how You'll defend this thing to the bitter end. Just like us old timers who still really believe the M9 wasn't a decent replacement for the 1911.

You're the one with the credibility problem. Did M9 slides crack? Yes they did. I don't give a shit when they cracked, they cracked. And it was early on. I'm telling you I heard the information before that report says they had that problem. I'll also tell you too what I read in 1989, says to me the issue was a little bigger than you're making it out to be.

So, today would I take an M9? No. There's better out there. And no amount of slander by you is going to make me change my opinion.
 
#96
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the guys w/ lil hands that complain about the grip being too big yet they want a "man" sized caliber! </div></div>

First I'm going to call you and idiot.

I have average hands and running the M9 is like typing with winter gloves on. Running a 1911 is almost second nature because its ergonomics are amazing and it <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span> HAS A SLIMMER GRIP PROFILE <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span>. Its single stack you retard.

Now I'm going to tear apart your "credibility"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
b) When it started life it had shoddy QC. </div></div>
False, slide and locking block issues didn't arise until the M9s were made here. Those few failures were directly related to the miscalibration of the heat treating ovens! It's a free country; do what you want buy what you want, just don't pass around stuff on heresey just because your friends told you so....causes credibility issues! </div></div>

Where did you get that?

According to GAO reports

A) The slide malfunctions reported began in 1987. (NSIAD-88-213)
B) M9 Slides were not produced in the US until April 1988. (NSIAD-88-213)

Don't believe me? These are National Security International Affars Division reports from the Government Accountability Office. Go to page 14 (16 on the browser bar) and start reading.

http://archive.gao.gov/d16t6/136824.pdf

Hows that for credibility?



Edited for spelling
 
#97
Re: why no beretta love?

I think much depends on the realm in which the pistol will be used. I've owned a number of 92FS's in my time. It's usually one of the first to go when I want something else more. Why? because I know there's plenty more out there to buy one again. Not like I'm selling a 97% .30-40 Krag ya know!
smile.gif


My experience with the Beretta 92 has all been positive. I have enjoyed shooting it in production USPSA, plinking,and some off-duty carry as well. It has digested any ammo I have put through it. Unless I set up the malfunction with dummy rounds, it has worked all the time.

I do think they are a bit fat/large in the grip area. I have shorter fingers, and I can shoot it well. But, . . . I bet it is a bit challenge for smaller handed.

For me pesonally, I would rather have a Glock in combat. Is it the best? Nope. The best is what I can shoot with confidence and skill. You may shoot a Sig, XD, 1911 better. Giddy-up for you then.

Beretta is one of those pistols (specifically the 92's) that I will always like. No practical reason, just like them.

Kinda like anything italian it seems? I've had Ducati motorbikes, Benelli Shotguns(actually. . .still have them.), women, expresso - they're fun and sexy for a while, but sometimes the temperment is too much to handle.
wink.gif
hehe

-G45
 
#98
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bjdm151</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The XM9 trials, like many other iterations of military testing, can be shown as flawed to say the least. Although the Air Force origianlly aproved the M9 the Army took over and retested everything upon which all subjects failed. Congress was furious, withheld funding for more .45 ammo, and everything was retested with less stringent standards. The M9 and the Sig passed the test, Sig was contraversially under bid, and Beretta was awarded the contract.

After the quality issues arose XM10 was started and more contraqversy insued. Need more proof of the outstanding capabilites and possible politicking in military trials check out the Army ACU's.

This is where I got my information on the XM9 trials. I'm sure there is more supporting evidence out there but I'm too lazy to look for it now.

http://www.coolgunsite.com/comm_pistols/beretta92.htm

Being a self proclaimed HK Fanboy I feel I must add that the HK P7M13 only failed the saltwater testing. I could go on and on about the merits and brilliance of the P7 series but I honestly feel its a pistol thats not for everyone. Being in a non combat unit I know the type of idiots that get issued pistols.




</div></div>
Sorry I missed the HK fanboy w/ the little hands part; it explains alot! Care to show me where Beretta failed the first XM9 test? Speaking of HK how did the VP70 do in those tests?

http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/pdf/2009-11/2009111213533-beretta92.pdf
 
#99
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bjdm151</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The XM9 trials, like many other iterations of military testing, can be shown as flawed to say the least. Although the Air Force origianlly aproved the M9 the Army took over and retested everything upon which all subjects failed. Congress was furious, withheld funding for more .45 ammo, and everything was retested with less stringent standards. The M9 and the Sig passed the test, Sig was contraversially under bid, and Beretta was awarded the contract.

After the quality issues arose XM10 was started and more contraqversy insued. Need more proof of the outstanding capabilites and possible politicking in military trials check out the Army ACU's.

This is where I got my information on the XM9 trials. I'm sure there is more supporting evidence out there but I'm too lazy to look for it now.

http://www.coolgunsite.com/comm_pistols/beretta92.htm

Being a self proclaimed HK Fanboy I feel I must add that the HK P7M13 only failed the saltwater testing. I could go on and on about the merits and brilliance of the P7 series but I honestly feel its a pistol thats not for everyone. Being in a non combat unit I know the type of idiots that get issued pistols.




</div></div>
Sorry I missed the HK fanboy w/ the little hands part; it explains alot! Care to show me where Beretta failed the first XM9 test? Speaking of HK how did the VP70 do in those tests?

http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/pdf/2009-11/2009111213533-beretta92.pdf </div></div>

You make it too easy. Did you read the article you just cited?

Page 4 at the end of the first paragraph of the section titled "The Army Balks".....

-"By the February 1982 deadline, none
of the pistols had successfully completed the testing
because of the unrealistic reliability standards. Of the
72 “mandatory” and 13 “desirable” requirements, no
entry met more than 11 of those standards."

And as far as the VP70 is concerned it wasn't even in the XM9 trials. WTF are you talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
You have to love Beretta/Sako customer service.......or lack of
Replies
10
Views
587
carbonbased
carbonbased
ThirtyOne
SOLD FOR SALE: **REDUCED** Langdon Tactical Beretta 92FS Italian Model
Replies
5
Views
543
cjmartin315
C
Nubba0681
SOLD Beretta 694 B Fast
Replies
5
Views
495
Macirsh
M
I
Red dot at 100 yrds
Replies
6
Views
451
ironman56
I
M
My own experiences with Garmin Xero C1 vs Labradar vs Magnetospeed
Replies
0
Views
819
metroplex
M
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts