• The Shot You’ll Never Forget Giveaway - Enter To Win A Barrel From Rifle Barrel Blanks!

    Tell us about the best or most memorable shot you’ve ever taken. Contest ends June 13th and remember: subscribe for a better chance of winning!

    Join contest Subscribe

Suppressors M9 Performance

JoeSmith

JoeSmith

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 13, 2006
326
0
Texas
#1
Someone remind me again WHY?? Uncle Sam just bought another 400,000 of these POS?
"Only" four locking blocks broke today! Had to pound the slide off one just to get it off, that or saw it open. Bonus: M4 bolt cam pin sheared off.
040.jpg

035.jpg
 
#2
Re: M9 Performance

i talked to a company that makes aftermarket barrels for beretta.they informed me that beretta uses alot of parts they consider to be 2nds.because they do supply the troops with the best.if this is true i don`t know.but i do have close to 10,000 rounds threw my m9.all without any mishaps.sorry to hear about your luck buddy...i`d go with a aftermarket locking block mechanism next time.
 
#3
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: redrider308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i talked to a company that makes aftermarket barrels for beretta.they informed me that beretta uses alot of parts they consider to be 2nds.because they do supply the troops with the best.if this is true i don`t know.but i do have close to 10,000 rounds threw my m9.all without any mishaps.sorry to hear about your luck buddy...i`d go with a aftermarket locking block mechanism next time. </div></div>

Considering the OP is talking about M4s and a bunch of M9s, he very well may be talking about military M9s.

Shoulda got a Glock.

-dan
 
#4
Re: M9 Performance

I didn`t think a civilian could buy a true m9?My Beretta is a m9 replica.Actually considered a 92.Either way find a company that makes aftermarket lock blocks.I baught an aftermarket barrel for my suppressor from KKM PRECISION.I know they do make the block also
 
#5
Re: M9 Performance

Aftermarket on issue firearms is a "no-no." Having said that, some do what they have to do. It's not worth to me to have to use my own money to pay for the massive F-up that is the M9 fiasco and continually fix what can't be.
10,000 rounds might be a slow month for some of those.
I usually do just use a Glock.
As for Beretta supplying USG with the "best"...give me a break. There are so many inherent design and function flaws on that monstrosity there is no hope for it. What are they on now, third and fourth generation "fixes" for a particular part?!!
If Beretta would have any sense of honor, they would have refused to sell any more M9 to the USG and instead insist they shortcan the whole shebang and demand a free and fair competition to select a new JSP. Yeh, that just didn't happen.
 
#6
Re: M9 Performance

+1 one of our adjacent units had a huge investigation because people were mailing soldiers hollow points for their m9's which apparently was against geneva conventions.

I wonder if the insurgencies abide by the GC /sarcasm
 
#8
Re: M9 Performance

Bwhahahaha! Yeh, mir auch! I have seen so many times that they done gone and fixed it right THIS time! And year after year we keep bustin 'em.
 
#9
Re: M9 Performance

A broken locking block is old news for the M9.

While I've seen more than a few break it's also the only part I've ever seen break on the M9.

No one ever thinks this is due in part to improper maintenance?

That comment goes to many many malfunctions and breakages across all weapon systems. So many don't properly lube their weapons.

The locking block is a part that must be constantly inspected and
well lubed.

Never seen a broken cam pin before period. And I may have put a round or two through the M4 and M16 platforms.

But hey, shit happens and NO firearm is immune to breakages.
 
#10
Re: M9 Performance

I got out about the time the M9 was issued and recalled because the slides wern't holding up. At the time I was running the Marksmanship Unit for the AK NG. I was able to keep all the 1911a1s (service grade we issued to the units for combat pistol matches). Like most others I resisted the change. In reality I dont know much about the M9s or their civilian counter parts.

But when I think back, there were people complaining about the Garand replacing the '03 Springfields, the M14s replacing the Garand, the M16s replacing the M14s, This will go on forever as long as old soldiers are asked (or told) to accept a new systems.

I'm not differnant. When sent to SE Asia I didnt want to swap my M14 for a M16A1. A year later I wouldnt have traded my A1 for any rifle out there. Except for HP matches. Now I find I'm one of the old soldiers who is fighting change, giving my my Super Match M1A for the ARs, even know they preform better in high power matches.

But if this wasnt the case, wouldnt have nothing to talk about in these forums. But in reality anything can break...................unless its on a 1911a1
 
#11
Re: M9 Performance

These M9's were lubed. That is one of the very many deficiencys in that weapon system, IMO. A military grade sidearm should not be so dependent on lube to function correctly.
Although it is quite true most don't keep their M9s properly lubed.
Several units went to the Brigadier slide because the regular ones were cracking. Hmm, I see a trend here...
One of my buddies cam pin sheared and the bolt near the gas rings broke downrange last year. Dont know WTF that was all about.
We are on around the 3rd or 4th generation locking block. That is completely unacceptable for our nation that produces the space shuttle to the Hoover dam to have our troops fight with this M9 system which is clearly obsolete technology from the 1930's!
One is not inspired to confidence in it since you never know what will happen when you draw your secondary and it...malfunctions and locks up tighter than a drum.
What then? Start throwing the bitch like SFC Horvath, thats what!
Anyone tell me which SWAT, Tier 1 or major Federal agency uses the M9? (Crickets)
There are some darn good reasons for that. None of the big boys use it.
 
#12
Re: M9 Performance

I know I am going to get fried. but... I love my M9. Being that I am either shooting or teaching how to shoot one every day I have seen the good the bad and the ugly. Every gun fails with time, especially when it is a training gun. With proper inspection you can accurately predict when the most failure susceptible part is going to go. And with the M9 it takes less than 2 min to strip and check the locking block and the slide. We rarely have failures on the line with the M9. The most failures that we have as with the M4 and the M16 A2(not counting MGs) As far as getting a replacement. It has to be in 9mm due to NATO. Matter of fact that is why it is so hard to change any caliber if it is going to be used for the main combat force. Also I don’t think you can find a better gun as far as safety goes. I also think it is great for first time shooters. The biggest problem that I see is females with small hands having trouble with it but that’s it. Lube it, Inspect it, take care of it and it is a great pistol. Are there better? Yes. But this is what we got.
Also you don’t have to pound these guns at all when the locking block goes. 90% of the time I can get the apart w/out tools. Just gently move the slide back and fourth with the dis-assembly lever down and it will eventually move to a point and release the slide. When you pound it, it will cause the broken locking block wings to gouge into the aluminum receiver. If you need to take a smaller punch and move and hold the broken pieces in place to get it released. If it happens in combat, and there is still one un-cracked wing there the weapon will still function for at least a few shots.
The M9 is identical to the 92F Beretta. Some differences you might see are the lanyard loop, some markings and other differences in styles or more updated frames.
Hollow Point projectiles are illegal according to the Hague Conventions of 1899. And it is not just hollow point projectiles. It is any projectile that is designed to cause fragmentation, mushrooming or any extra tissue damage to prevent extra suffering. Yes I know that a ball round can cause suffering too but I did not write the laws. See below form wiki

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.[3] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention.
 
#13
Re: M9 Performance

Kilo:
Good tips and advice.
I would posit that a Sig is better for first time shooters for better ergonomics and trigger pull. Building off immediate frustration when first encountering the M9 is a recipe for poor follow on skill development.
Usually the above listed procedures work for a broken block, however, in Mr Slide Pound's case, that was a not happening and it had to be cleared of the live round in the chamber before it came off the firing line.
That we are even having to discuss this is the height of insanity. This weapon system has been given so many chances it is unbelievable.
The M9 cannot take a high round count. It may be great for units where it sits in a holster.
 
#14
Re: M9 Performance

True The Sig would be better for learners. And yes sittin in holsters is a good duty for this gun, even for just the safety features.
How did it break with a live round in the chamber? In my experiences it breaks as it is fired and doesnt even get a chance to eject the spent cartridge. Did it break after feeding trying to lock?
 
#15
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I got out about the time the M9 was issued and recalled because the slides wern't holding up. At the time I was running the Marksmanship Unit for the AK NG. I was able to keep all the 1911a1s (service grade we issued to the units for combat pistol matches). Like most others I resisted the change. In reality I dont know much about the M9s or their civilian counter parts.

But when I think back, there were people complaining about the Garand replacing the '03 Springfields, the M14s replacing the Garand, the M16s replacing the M14s, This will go on forever as long as old soldiers are asked (or told) to accept a new systems.

I'm not differnant. When sent to SE Asia I didnt want to swap my M14 for a M16A1. A year later I wouldnt have traded my A1 for any rifle out there. Except for HP matches. Now I find I'm one of the old soldiers who is fighting change, giving my my Super Match M1A for the ARs, even know they preform better in high power matches.

But if this wasnt the case, wouldnt have nothing to talk about in these forums. But in reality anything can break...................unless its on a 1911a1 </div></div>

Funny that I had a M1A/M14 in Iraq on my last tour before this one.
Those systems have their benefits and the load sometimes needs to be tailored for the operation/operational environment.
 
#16
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kilo7788</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know I am going to get fried. but... I love my M9. Being that I am either shooting or teaching how to shoot one every day I have seen the good the bad and the ugly. Every gun fails with time, especially when it is a training gun. With proper inspection you can accurately predict when the most failure susceptible part is going to go. And with the M9 it takes less than 2 min to strip and check the locking block and the slide. We rarely have failures on the line with the M9. The most failures that we have as with the M4 and the M16 A2(not counting MGs) As far as getting a replacement. It has to be in 9mm due to NATO. Matter of fact that is why it is so hard to change any caliber if it is going to be used for the main combat force. Also I don’t think you can find a better gun as far as safety goes. I also think it is great for first time shooters. The biggest problem that I see is females with small hands having trouble with it but that’s it. Lube it, Inspect it, take care of it and it is a great pistol. Are there better? Yes. But this is what we got.
Also you don’t have to pound these guns at all when the locking block goes. 90% of the time I can get the apart w/out tools. Just gently move the slide back and fourth with the dis-assembly lever down and it will eventually move to a point and release the slide. When you pound it, it will cause the broken locking block wings to gouge into the aluminum receiver. If you need to take a smaller punch and move and hold the broken pieces in place to get it released. If it happens in combat, and there is still one un-cracked wing there the weapon will still function for at least a few shots.
The M9 is identical to the 92F Beretta. Some differences you might see are the lanyard loop, some markings and other differences in styles or more updated frames.
Hollow Point projectiles are illegal according to the Hague Conventions of 1899. And it is not just hollow point projectiles. It is any projectile that is designed to cause fragmentation, mushrooming or any extra tissue damage to prevent extra suffering. Yes I know that a ball round can cause suffering too but I did not write the laws. See below form wiki

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.[3] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention.
</div></div>

ammunition which is designed to cause undue suffering is restricted.
Thats funny about the St Petersburg Dec.. I keep thinking of Raufus MK211 DET for the .50 BMG..
 
#17
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shooter5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These M9's were lubed. That is one of the very many deficiencys in that weapon system, IMO. A military grade sidearm should not be so dependent on lube to function correctly.
Although it is quite true most don't keep their M9s properly lubed.
Several units went to the Brigadier slide because the regular ones were cracking. Hmm, I see a trend here...
One of my buddies cam pin sheared and the bolt near the gas rings broke downrange last year. Dont know WTF that was all about.
We are on around the 3rd or 4th generation locking block. That is completely unacceptable for our nation that produces the space shuttle to the Hoover dam to have our troops fight with this M9 system which is clearly obsolete technology from the 1930's!
One is not inspired to confidence in it since you never know what will happen when you draw your secondary and it...malfunctions and locks up tighter than a drum.
What then? Start throwing the bitch like SFC Horvath, thats what!
Anyone tell me which SWAT, Tier 1 or major Federal agency uses the M9? (Crickets)
There are some darn good reasons for that. None of the big boys use it. </div></div>


First, about any weapons system will function without lube..............for a short time anyway. And EVERY firearm is like that military or not. If you can point out any that just dont' need it I'd love to hear.

Parts break......... period. In every single weapons system out there. Shit happens. Now maintain your system properly and try to minimize it.

And yes much better can be done than the M9. It's certainly time for a new standard military firearm.

We've come a long way since the 80's. Not the 30's bro, so don't get too carried away.

Many agencies did use the M9 for quite a while, there are just better choices out there now.


Having said all that I own an M9 and carried one regularly in the corps.(notice the expert badge below)
I also happened to have been in a unit that shot a ridiculously large amount of ammo regularly, from every single small arm the Marine Corps had in it's inventory at the time.

So yes I've seen a few locking blocks break. But hell I'd attribute that to poor maintenance again, since there are those that just don't know how and we had some very extended shooting sessions putting lots of stress on those firearms. If a couple of those broke because they were just bad parts no big deal. It was the only part that ever did break. So get smart and carry an extra in your kit.

I have never had or witnessed a colt bolt breakage. But that happens too and it's smart to keep an extra bolt carrier group in your gear if possible.......just in case.

It's a tool, and tools break. If they didn't sears wouldn't take back my craftsman.





 
#18
Re: M9 Performance

imho seems like a repeating cycle with the military regarding all its armaments and other equipment for that matter. it starts out,"this old platform is a pos," usually because the inventory is aging and worn and the armorers have seen the same breakages multiple times. i remember when the cool guys were first getting the m9 and how everyone thought our aging inventory of 1911's were pos. now seems the cool guys are packing 1911's again. my take is its because they wore out the m9's. same happened with m60 vs saw i think and then again to the 240b. i like a brand new 92f. nothin sexier. parts break. thats what armorers have an mos for. if theres a operational requirement not being met thats one thing but if its maintenance gripes for high round count units, i dont consider it a legitimate gripe or design flaw. often these are simply grass is greener whines because ops wanna try the latest and greatest on my tax dime. just 2 pennys flappin in the breeze from an over the hill salt.
 
#19
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">imho seems like a repeating cycle with the military regarding all its armaments and other equipment for that matter. it starts out,"this old platform is a pos," usually because the inventory is aging and worn and the armorers have seen the same breakages multiple times. i remember when the cool guys were first getting the m9 and how everyone thought our aging inventory of 1911's were pos. now seems the cool guys are packing 1911's again. my take is its because they wore out the m9's. same happened with m60 vs saw i think and then again to the 240b. i like a brand new 92f. nothin sexier. parts break. thats what armorers have an mos for. if theres a operational requirement not being met thats one thing but if its maintenance gripes for high round count units, i dont consider it a legitimate gripe or design flaw. often these are simply grass is greener whines because ops wanna try the latest and greatest on my tax dime. just 2 pennys flappin in the breeze from an over the hill salt. </div></div>
The 240B now there is a POS in my opinion and experience. I think they should jsut be replaced with mk48s.
 
#20
Re: M9 Performance

The M9 took some design hints from the 1930s era P38. The 1980s update was nothing more than the 1950s era M1951. Bit past its prime.
(BTW-more than a few Helwans encountered have exploded, always fun for a barrel of laughs. But then again, probably shouldn't have been shooting them anyway!)
We all agree parts wear out and break. No big deal.
What is a big deal is: by definition a secondary weapon should be of supreme reliability-if not MORE reliable than a primary-since it usually or/tends to be drawn when the primary is down. Now, when you draw an M9-one never knows when that bitch is going to function. Or not.
Got Glock? Got Sig? No issues.
 
#21
Re: M9 Performance

Sigs have long rails that require grease to keep them running. Even if I thought our boys should be using a double action pistol (and I don't), the Sig wouldn't be my choice. Sand + lots of contact between slide and frame = jams in a rough environment. I hesitate to say I'd rather see a sloppier pistol in a military man's holster. Perhaps a super slick finish could be applied that could solve that problem.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FYCN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">+1 one of our adjacent units had a huge investigation because people were mailing soldiers hollow points for their m9's which apparently was against geneva conventions.

I wonder if the insurgencies abide by the GC /sarcasm </div></div>

The military has been using hollow points against terrorists for 30 years or more. I have wondered why we're fighting terrorists like we'd fight a war since 9/11. Since we're no longer fighting any uniformed army, it would have made a lot more sense to develop and use expanding and/or soft point bullets for all of our weapons.
 
#23
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shooter5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The M9 took some design hints from the 1930s era P38. The 1980s update was nothing more than the 1950s era M1951. Bit past its prime.
(BTW-more than a few Helwans encountered have exploded, always fun for a barrel of laughs. But then again, probably shouldn't have been shooting them anyway!)
We all agree parts wear out and break. No big deal.
What is a big deal is: by definition a secondary weapon should be of supreme reliability-if not MORE reliable than a primary-since it usually or/tends to be drawn when the primary is down. Now, when you draw an M9-one never knows when that bitch is going to function. Or not.
Got Glock? Got Sig? No issues.
</div></div>

The beretta is very reliable... as a blunt object. No kidding though. You will always get one shot off even if the locking block or the slide break. Do you know the tuning fork trick with the slide? And to can see stress marks/cracks in the logking block a while before they break. I got 45 rounds out of a locking block that was cracked before it broke. I intentionally left it in the gun until it broke. I always inspect it when I pull it.
 
#24
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kilo7788</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do you know the tuning fork trick with the slide? </div></div>

Do tell.
 
#25
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Photon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kilo7788</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do you know the tuning fork trick with the slide? </div></div>

Do tell. </div></div>

This is 100% full proof to prevent getting caught with your pants down and the front half of your slide flying at your target.

Hold the slide by the safety. Take the recoil spring guide and tap it on either side. It will ring like a tuning fork. If it does not ring it is very close to failing. If you want to see what it sounds like when there is no ring just hold it on either side of teh skinniest part instead of the safety.
 
#26
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shooter5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, when you draw an M9-one never knows when that bitch is going to function. Or not.
Got Glock? Got Sig? No issues.</div></div>
Sure. And if you Google around, you find no issues on Glocks indeed.
Are Glocks bad because you can find quite a decent assortment of "accidents" on the net?
No, because it is the accident ratio that counts. And if you consider the number of M9/92 or Glocks around, you'll easily find out that such ratio is pretty darn small.
If reliability was the game, I'd pick my 92 over any other pistol I own.
 
#27
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HotIce</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shooter5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, when you draw an M9-one never knows when that bitch is going to function. Or not.
Got Glock? Got Sig? No issues.</div></div>
Sure. And if you Google around, you find no issues on Glocks indeed.
Are Glocks bad because you can find quite a decent assortment of "accidents" on the net?
No, because it is the accident ratio that counts. And if you consider the number of M9/92 or Glocks around, you'll easily find out that such ratio is pretty darn small.
If reliability was the game, I'd pick my 92 over any other pistol I own.
</div></div>


I couldn't disagree more.

There are a whole lot of both glock 17 and beretta 92's out there to draw examples from.


I have found both to be extremely reliable, however if reliability is the game the glock wins hands down.
 
#28
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">=YourMotherTrebekFirst, about any weapons system will function without lube..............for a short time anyway. And EVERY firearm is like that military or not. If you can point out any that just dont' need it I'd love to hear.



</div></div>

Um POFs are advertised as not requiring lube. I have a .223 upper and a .308 rifle and I don't oil them. And they run and run and run.

-dan.
 
#29
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deersniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">=YourMotherTrebekFirst, about any weapons system will function without lube..............for a short time anyway. And EVERY firearm is like that military or not. If you can point out any that just dont' need it I'd love to hear.



</div></div>

Um POFs are advertised as not requiring lube. I have a .223 upper and a .308 rifle and I don't oil them. And they run and run and run.

-dan. </div></div>

What is run and run and run? How many rounds over how long a time period?

It has been proven over and over again that a properly lubed firearm, especially an AR will run much longer than one without lube.

Lubrication cuts down on friction. Friction causes heat and stress. Both of which lead to increased malfunctions and breakages.

That right there is either believing the advertising way too much or just plain laziness.

I even lube my 416 with is built to a much higher standard that an POF.
 
#30
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shooter5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A military grade sidearm should not be so dependent on lube to function correctly.
</div></div>


Lets just stop and think about that for a minute...LOL

M4, M14, Mk-46 Torpedo, MK-48 Torpedo, they all require lubrication...


I have a 92FS - and I have shot many rounds in rapid concession, higher power rounds, 147gr rounds, you name it - the thing just performs.

I've owned 4 92's and one ACTUAL 92 (Predecessor to the 92F) - have NEVER had a lick of problems.


WHen I was in Alaska I took out 500 rds and put them in rapid succession into a 55 gal drum, heated that thing up, beat it ot hell, and it kept performing.


I had a Ford however, off the showroom floor that failed me...never had an issue on my Nissan tho!

But I always changed the oil too..

(You get my point)...
 
#31
Re: M9 Performance

ahhh the internet is never short of trolls and those who bash product A for their perfect product B. rarely do i chime in on this section, but the M9/92FS is an EXCELLENT platform. it's always funny when you get someone who has an issue while active duty. its ALWAYS a POS. when in fact the M9 they hold in their hands is well over 10 years old, not very well taken care of, and has seen thousands of thousands rounds with the same magazines/springs/ followers, often shitty Check Mate mags. i've shot my police-trade 92FS in IDPA/IPSC matches for years. it had seen about 13k rounds when i got it. now upwards of 40k. never a problem, just switch out springs and you'll be ok. YES the design is outdated, but so is the 1911. also i think its VERY unfair to compare this pistol to a glock, their two different animals. and every design and manufacturer have lemons or a few that skip the QC line. it just happens. ANY gun will fail if not taken care of, even the "Uber" reliable Glock
sick.gif
BTW look how worn that M9 is in that pic....kind of cool looking.
 
#32
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">also i think its VERY unfair to compare this pistol to a glock..</div></div>

It is unfair. The Glock is so far superior in every way that the Beretta might as well be a matchlock.

One of the shooters in our current class is an E9 who is also a gunsmith. He was shooting a 1911. I asked him if he carried an M9 when he deployed. He answered, "Unfortunately, yes" because he has no choice. But he pointed out that he did regularly change the springs, and carried a spare spring set.

The 92 is indeed shootable - Ernie Langdon did very will with one when he was Beretta's house shooter. And then he moved on to Sig...

You can shoot a Beretta pretty well if you have to - I owned a 96 long enough to satisfy myself that I could, because I have to teach it - but why would you <span style="font-style: italic">want</span> to, unless someone made you?
 
#33
Re: M9 Performance

I have been a military small arms instructor for over twenty years, in both the US Marine Corps and US Army. I have heard many people malign the M9 pistol and moan and groan about the good old days with the 1911. I admit, I would prefer to carry a 1911 in combat, but given the fact that I must use what is issued, I honestly never felt hindered by the M9. It did have some problems in the early years, largely due to the use of sub-machine gun ammunition instead of dedicated pistol ammo. Those issues were corrected and I have rarely seen a failure on the part of the pistols we use, even after thousands of rounds have been fired in them. Like any tool, it must be properly cared for and lubricated if you expect it to function properly. I expect to deploy again soon and am comfortable with the M9 at my side.
 
#35
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 92 is indeed shootable - Ernie Langdon did very will with one when he was Beretta's house shooter. And then he moved on to Sig...</div></div>
In the interest of full disclosure, he's done a lot of moving:
Beretta to Sig
Sig to S&W
S&W to ReconRobotics
[With some manufacturer consulting speckled in]

If you were trying to imply that he left BUSA for a better gun @ Sig, you can use the same logic about S&W over Sig.

Care to guess what he was shooting before Beretta?
 
#37
Re: M9 Performance

Never understood the "rectangular" firing pin logic??? I have seen many light hits on a Glock that function perfect in a Beretta! Please save the "modern ammo" arguement for someone else! Glock is perhaps more corrosion resistant and rugged. There is a reason why they tell you to use only 3 drops of oil! If oil hinders it what do you think other stuff like mud would do?
 
#38
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know what Ernie was shooting before Beretta - whatever the Marine Corps gave him to shoot.</div></div>

He was an occasional participant on the calibers-l and beretta-l mailing lists (before the forum days), and he had a good post that I wish I'd saved.

He talked about all of the things he's broken. It was something like: I've sheared 1911 lugs, broken Glock blocks, broken Bertta locking blocks, and cracked Sig frames ... it was quite an impressive list.
 
#40
Re: M9 Performance

Boom: Yeh, saw that, too. But...the response in the next issue was written by, hmm, not an operator or vet. So consider the source. (Not saying he doesn't know what he talking about.)
I sometimes find it interesting that some/not all who praise the M9 either don't usually have it out of the holster much or have never used it in extreme conditions.
Mr Langdon is an great example of what a pro can/does; they can take a tool and makes it do what it is designed to do and make it do it very well. Those types can take ANY tool and reach its performance.
And yep, parts and such can/have and did break on any make or model.
I never said Glock or any else shouldn't/doesn't need lube. Other designs are much less dependent upon it as well as the amount.
Kilo: I know some someone's who have had Sig, HK, 1911, Glock, heck revolvers and yes, even the M9 downrange.
Many do like and trust the M9. I am not among that crowd.
As for Glock. Flawless.
 
#41
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">also i think its VERY unfair to compare this pistol to a glock..</div></div>

It is unfair. The Glock is so far superior in every way that the Beretta might as well be a matchlock.

One of the shooters in our current class is an E9 who is also a gunsmith. He was shooting a 1911. I asked him if he carried an M9 when he deployed. He answered, "Unfortunately, yes" because he has no choice. But he pointed out that he did regularly change the springs, and carried a spare spring set.

The 92 is indeed shootable - Ernie Langdon did very will with one when he was Beretta's house shooter. And then he moved on to Sig...

You can shoot a Beretta pretty well if you have to - I owned a 96 long enough to satisfy myself that I could, because I have to teach it - but why would you <span style="font-style: italic">want</span> to, unless someone made you? </div></div>

+1. Except I don't own one of these POSs, because, fortunately, I don't have to teach them. If I teach someone to shoot, I start with a .22, then onto a striker fired pistol, and then onto single action.
 
#42
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kilo7788</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would acctually like to see a glock taken to the desert and used in ops. I know it has been done. So maby the report. </div></div>

The report is flawless.
 
#43
Re: M9 Performance

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: YourMotherTrebek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kilo7788</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would acctually like to see a glock taken to the desert and used in ops. I know it has been done. So maby the report. </div></div>

The report is flawless. </div></div>

+1
 
#45
Re: M9 Performance

I am getting a Glock most likely. I just spoke with my step father and his dept is getting new ones so I am going to pick up a used. I think he said it was a 21 in 40. He didn't know what it was. But for the price I dont care what I am getting as long as it shoots bullets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

3-0-hate
Gunsmithing Anyone ever seen this before (Savage)
Replies
34
Views
2K
Makinchips208
Makinchips208
ut755ln
HK MR556 A4 a quick review with some links to videos
Replies
10
Views
2K
Charmingmander
Charmingmander
Bakwa
Casual KAC SR-15 Comparison [a study in performance]
Replies
74
Views
10K
SigSauerM7
SigSauerM7
K
Rifle Scopes Slide locking adjustment knobs
Replies
0
Views
312
Keokuk
K
Bilb0
SOLD Updated: 2011 Custom Parts + Tools. Cheely, Brazos, Atlas etc. [Trade: $:Ammo]
Replies
5
Views
2K
Bilb0
Bilb0
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts