Re: why no beretta love?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donttrytorun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are ust some stubborn people who will argue their preference, and comfort, to the end. I am surprised nobody has got up here yet singing the praise of the SAA or Lemat. I am sure somebody is determined to defend them to the end, just like with the 1911.
The fact is that the average Military shooter, with the experience of a average military shooter, is much more cabable of getting more and better hits with a M9 thn a 1911, either at the range or under the stress of combat. That is because the M9 is a modern design, and points and aims naturally. Even Design even makes it harder to make the mistakes so common with the 1911 in novice hands.
A single 9mm ball in the torso takes about 13 seconds to incapacitate a person. A hollow point takes about half that long. A 45 may fall somewhere in the middle.
<span style="font-weight: bold">But i am sure if things get desperate enough for a 19 year old to use a pistol against the enemy that with a M9 they will not only hit the target, but likely will make it a sieve. That wouldn't happen with a .45. The number of hits will be reduced in the hands of a average shooter, under pressure and stress or not. </span>
I shot Expert with the 1911A1 4 times before I did the same with the M9, in the marines. I coached shooters at quals. We had to raise the bar when we switched, to a harder qual course. The scores on a harder qual course were still better. Everybody agreed that the M9 was accurate and reliable, and much easier to shoot and hit with.
Even the girls.</div></div>
It's pretty obvious you've never used the pistol in an offensive mode vs. a defensive mode, for which the average military mindset is geared for. And all this shooting just happened to be all better? Same amount of training, just better scores? Again, I say the biggest problem with the .45 was everyone was intimidated by it. They aren't that hard to shoot. I still find mine more ergonomic than the few M9's I've shot. The M9 IMO, was nowhere near as ergonomic as several other 9mm's on the market today.
In case you missed it I did defend the Colt SAA, specifically in reference to when we went back to the .45 from the .38 (9mm) during the Spanish-American war. I didn't say bring it back though. Of course, it seemed to satisfy the soldiers back then, but some bean-head type put that down to myth. So, back to the inferior 9mm we go. No sense in training people up to make them better.... We might as well shoot .22's. Those are really easy to train people on....wait, we did that...but it was deemed too expensive.
"More people died from disease than from high Moros" was the term used in an earlier post. Well, according to the Army, more people died from disease than All combat mortalities combined.
In fact, I find it interesting as just in the Cuba campaign alone deaths from combat went from 1600 something to 231. (from a recent audit) The discrepancy went to, you got it, disease. A clear statement to me that some will go so far as to try and rewrite history to justify the means to their ends. Disease did take a huge toll on our troops back then. But, going back and making it look like something else was the reason for all the combat deaths is just wrong.
Suffice it to say, you are one of the people who like the M9. And, at least you give a valid, "real world" contribution. An opinion based on your experiences. While I still prefer the .45 and .40 and do not own a 9mm, those of you who do like M9 have sung it's praises enough for me to understand that you like it and make it work well for you.
