Should the Military get rid of the Beretta M9 pistol and replace it with something better? If so, what pistol do you suggest?

2014-02-01T16:00:57-05:00

Lets hear your opinion on the Beretta M9? Should we scrap it and get a better weapon? If so, then what pistol should the Military look into? My suggestion would be 3 different pistols, the Glock 22(.40 Cal), The Sig Sauer P229 or the Smith & Wesson M&P .40cal. Why .40cal you ask? Because sometimes 9mm isn't enough knock down power, .45 is too big for many too handle and I feel .40 is a happy median of stopping power.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2014 4:05 PM

2014-02-01T16:05:57-05:00

I would love to see the .45acp Kimber show up.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2014 5:05 PM

2014-02-01T17:05:55-05:00

I would say that ditching the Beretta for something such as the Springfield XD would be better. Our Czech partners in Afghanistan carry them (They were a CZech development), and they love them. My personal XD has been flawless through thousands of rounds fired.

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Feb 1 at 2014 5:35 PM

2014-02-01T17:35:23-05:00

Bring back the .45 M1911 (Modded and updated). Why the military went away from it has always been a huge mystery. I guess the thinking was more ammo in the clip with the 9mm, sacrificing stopping power for more ammo.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Feb 1 at 2014 5:53 PM

2014-02-01T17:53:25-05:00

SSG, you raise an interesting point about model and caliber. I'm not a big fan of the 9mm. It's fast out of the bore, but light bullet weight limits its knock down power. We may be stuck with simply because a number of our allies were (and many still) using it at the time that it was adopted.

That said, many years ago in another life, I carried the Beretta 92 (the civilian version of the M9) as my primary service weapon while working for the local police department, and have nothing but love for the pistol. After discovering that Beretta made the same frame and mechanisms in .40 (the Beretta Model 96), I switched and carried that until the department standardized around the Glock model 22. I carried the Glock for several years and loved it because it was very simple; few moving parts; well made; and hard to break. Working as a smalls instructor for the department, I saw exactly one of them fail to function properly despite tens of thousands of rounds expended.

Likewise, I've carried the Sig P229 as it is now the standard issue service weapon for Coast Guard boarding teams (apparently there was some type of Dept of Homeland Security edict that requires everybody in the DHS to carry .40), and I'm not a big fan. The trigger pull is heavier than it needs to be, and the action is stiff by comparison to other similar weapons. No experience with the latest generation of S&W autoloaders simply because the first - third generation pistols were horrible in every way. Can't bring myself to pick one up after some many bad experiences 20 years ago.

The .40/.45 debate has been raging for two decades now in the civilian law enforcement world. I've used both, and see advantages/disadvantages both ways. It may well be decided by the caliber that offers model (frame sizes) with the most universal utility for the services as a whole.....no question that the hand to grip size ratio is everything when talking control.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2014 6:24 PM

2014-02-01T18:24:32-05:00

Yes, Yes, aaaand Yes. I personally hate the M9, and most of the people I know who are avid pistol shooters hate it too. Now I don't think that the Army would go for a Glock or S&W unless there was the thumb safety. I think a good alternative would have to be a Sig. Now as far as caliber goes, I say a .45. But, again, I don't think the Army would switch back to a .45 as a 9mm is more cost effective.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2014 6:29 PM

2014-02-01T18:29:26-05:00

Sig Sauer P226.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2014 9:05 PM

2014-02-01T21:05:25-05:00

I love my Glock but the M9 is a good pistol and we already own them.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2014 3:09 AM

2014-02-02T03:09:49-05:00

I think in this discussion we should look at the philosophy of use. Who is using this weapon and why? I think weight, reliability, and durability are the key determining factors. The M9 is far too heavy, it is bulky, and it fails. It is not a go to war gun in my opinion. I love the 10mm because it can pierce through car doors no problem and it has over 10,000 ft lbs of pressure behind it and can kill a bear but the recoil might be a bit too much. Call me crazy but I am a Glock supporter and I will bang that drum any day. My top three would be the G21SF, the G17, and the Sig P226. Glocks are cheaper than just about every high quality handgun out there, are incredibly simple to maintain, they are far more durable, far lighter, and rarely have I ever seen one fail to feed or fail to fire. The G21SF brings a full sized .45 but with reduced back straps making it a touch smaller. It also has a tac rail on the bottom for accessories like lights and lasers for our SOF guys. At a 13+1 capacity for a .45 you're getting a fair amount of power. Don't like the .45? The G17 is a full sized 9mm with a 17+1 capacity with the options of adding a plus two base plate making a 19+1 and a 33 round mag (which I think is stupid but it is an option). It is just 1.18 inches thick and weighs only 32 ounces fully loaded whereas the Beretta weighs in at 33 ounces empty. Side note: SSG I hate the .40! It can't figure out if wants to be a 9mm or a .45. It doesn't have the capacity of a 9mm and can't hit like a .45.

Response by SSG Oliver Mathews made Feb 2 at 2014 3:26 AM

2014-02-02T03:26:49-05:00

SSG Ledbetter,
I find it interesting that you would say that a .45ACP is to big. The 45 ACP is a low pressure round that yes provides a significant about of recoil is actually not as drastic as the .40S&W. which has a higher pressure. Both rounds have nearly the same ballistics.

If i had to chose a different firearm? i would proably go with something chambered in 10mm, Which is a high performance round that is not to hard on the hands but has great ballistics.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2014 10:40 AM

2014-02-02T10:40:11-05:00

I hate the Beretta , never seen a weapon where I can bolo on the firing line, walk off trade out with another soldier and then actually qualify with a different Beretta they are very inconsistent. Now my Gen 3 Glock 22 has had thousands of rounds through it both new and reloaded, and not one failure to fire, stove pipe, or failure to feed. And the same with my fathers Gen1 Glock 22. Very reliable platform .

Response by PFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2014 8:26 PM

2014-02-02T20:26:23-05:00

Personally, I am a fan of the M11 SIG pistol. It's durability and dependability are unparalleled in the 9x19mm caliber. However, because of the changing tides of war and the likelihood of future warfare being against enemies with body armor, I believe that we need a new service pistol in a higher caliber. Perhaps the .357 SIG or .45 ACP, or even the FN Five-SeveN 5.7mm. If our soldiers and MPs were issued the FN Five-SeveN, there would be no reason to worry about body armor on enemy combatants. My vote goes to FN!

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Feb 2 at 2014 8:51 PM

2014-02-02T20:51:48-05:00

M1911. I carry it. Simple, easy to field strip and clean very reliable. The .45ACP is not too big to handle in my opinion. It also carriers significantly higher kinetic energy than either a .40 or a 9MM. This is from my law enforcement experience. I did not carry while on active duty.

Response by SSG Shawn M. made Feb 17 at 2014 5:14 PM

2014-02-17T17:14:28-05:00

SSG, the Beretta 9 mil I feel is accurate and I don't seem to have too many issues with malfunctions but I agree with you that there are better guns out there. If I would have to pick I would go with the FN Five-Seven. You can't go wrong with 20 rounds a mag and a 5.7x28mm bullet.

Response by LTC John Czarnecki made Feb 26 at 2014 9:38 PM

2014-02-26T21:38:57-05:00

Keep the M9.  Issue it to that 90% of the Army that are NOT fighters.  Buy a quantity of whatever exotic 1911 or XP or Glock or whatever cool toy the fighters like best, and issue it to THEM.  The Infantry and SOF folks. Why the Army thinks everybody needs the latest / greatest is beyond me.  You work in the motor pool or in a commo shop?  Great.  Here's your M9.  MP?  Here's your M9 and an M16A2.  Grunt?  Here's your new SCAR and Kimber.  Now go kill something with 'em.

Response by SPC Gary Basom made Feb 27 at 2014 4:05 AM

2014-02-27T04:05:00-05:00

I do believe if there were a choice, 2 calibers come to mind. I still admire the .45 ACP in 230 grain FMJ bullets for stopping power. The other would be the .40 S&W TMJ (Truncated Metal Jacket) bullet in 180 grains. The pistol would be choice, I drift to the Springfield Armory XD, both are in .40 and .45, the XD has a mag capacity of 13 rounds in .45 and the XD in .40 I think has a capacity of 14 rounds. Both are hammerless and striker fired with a grip safety and trigger safety. Of course this is all services choices.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 7:13 AM

2014-02-27T07:13:52-05:00

I used to carry a pistol with me out on missions until I determined it was just deadweight. In the several firefights I've been in I've never once had to resort to using a pistol. I can reload my rifle almost as fast as I can draw a pistol, and I would much rather carry an extra rifle mag or two. Additionally, none of my soldiers or NCOs have ever used their pistols either after multiple deployments. I'm not saying the opportunity does not exist, and I have no hard satay to back this up, but I think the amount of people who have been forced to solely rely on their pistol in a firefight is so small that isn't worth the money to change it. They are nice to carry to the dfac and back, that's about it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2014 10:40 PM

2014-03-08T22:40:21-05:00

Another IMHO rant: I say leave them alone. Those who need a different caliber or a "sexier" piece ALREADY HAVE THEM. The rest of the force DOES NOT. I've been on both sides of the fence. I like having a secondary system with me. I also like when I'm forced to carry something all the time the convenience of a pistol. Combat Arms should have pistols but that's about it, unless your are in direct support of CA or SOF I don't think you should get them. I've seen WAY too many vaqueros out there thinking they are Wyatt Earp and they cant even properly fit and wear their HOLSTER. Too many times down range seeing these custom leather under arm holsters flopping around or a drop leg tied to someone's knee. REALLY? Should you be able to figure all that out, then cool, the M9 is gun enough for you. Glocks sure they're cool but ND's would quadruple, and the same with the 1911. The Beretta has the 3 safety system and that is why the military keeps it around, it does the job (as long as you are proficient in its use) and should you not be even a decent shot, it has the capacity to let you try a whole bunch of times to save your own hide. I'm not a big M9 advocate, but when properly maintained and trained with, one can do a whole lot of effective damage with it. The same goes for any pistol, at any caliber.

Response by SSG Zachery Mitchell made Mar 8 at 2014 11:01 PM

2014-03-08T23:01:44-05:00

I personally like my Rock Island Armory 1911 .45. I might be a little biased but would love to see the Army start using the .45. It's a great pistol with great stopping power and really easy to handle in my opinion.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 9 at 2014 2:53 PM

2014-05-09T14:53:03-04:00

I Hate Guns but I was on 3 Security Alert Teams so they were tools of my Trade. I'm sure I would be more accurate with the 9mm but if I am close enough I prefer the Knock Down Power of the old crappy 1911 45. Of all the weapons that I used I liked the 12 Gauge Mossberg Navy Shotgun and on one of the teams I had access to a 44 Mag Civilian type that I liked.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2014 3:17 PM

2014-05-09T15:17:24-04:00

Definitely should move back up to the.45ACP with the 1911 like the Marines have. Berettas are good, but only when they are a personal weapon. The 92Fs in the military aren't taken care of.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made May 9 at 2014 3:28 PM

2014-05-09T15:28:16-04:00

From a performance standpoint, I'd go with a 10mm, but the recoil may render it impractical.

The problem with a double stack .45 is the size of the grip. I have no trouble with them, but they certainly aren't comfortable. I suspect some of the soldiers I've met who are not 6' tall may not find it so easy. With a double stack magazine, I'd say a 10mm casing (10mm, .40 S&W, .357 Sig) is probably the biggest you could reasonably issue to an army with any diversity of hand size.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2014 4:36 PM

2014-05-09T16:36:23-04:00

I like the 9mm round (although I carry the .40-cal.), I just don't like the Beretta. Go with a Glock.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made May 9 at 2014 5:13 PM

2014-05-09T17:13:18-04:00

Still miss the 1911. Everyone was excited when the Barettas were fielded, mostly because they were new and shiny I think; but most folks (then anyway) still preferred the 1911s.
If memory serves, the major reason for transitioning from .45 to 9mm was to comply with NATO standard for ammo.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made May 9 at 2014 6:32 PM

2014-05-09T18:32:38-04:00

The Beretta is a fine pistol but really only fits Medium to Large size hands and the Medium is a stretch. The Glock 22/23 in a .40 would fit more hands and due to the design of the Glock, felt recoil is about the same. I have a M&P Shield in a 9mm that I use as a backup but I have never relied on the 9mm as my principle sidearm. I had .45's for 30 years and then went to the Glock 23 after going to their Armorer-Instructor course and shooting 1000 rounds through it in a week. Lighter and just as or more accurate.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made May 10 at 2014 1:37 AM

2014-05-10T01:37:59-04:00

I find that the .40 cal has the right balance of recoil, penetration and stopping power.

Response by Cpl George Goodwin made May 10 at 2014 9:20 PM

2014-05-10T21:20:55-04:00

I started out carrying the 1911 in the Marines but we ended up transitioning to the Beretta. I now carry the Glock 40 as a deputy sheriff. My favorite will always be the 45 but.... I was taught militarily that it was better to wound someone other than kill them as it could actually take three people out of the conflict by removing them to the rear. The 9mm ball is so fast the chance of it going through and hitting someone else is high and the range is better than the 45. In combat the logistics of a common round across all allies is a good thing. The only thing I didn't like about the Beretta was the open slide.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2014 9:27 PM

2014-05-10T21:27:38-04:00

Personally I have both a .45 and a .40. However, the reason for both the 5.56 and the 9 is to standardize after the creation of NATO.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2014 12:08 PM

2014-05-12T12:08:29-04:00

I'm fine with the 9mm cartridge, I just hate the Beretta.

Response by SGT Richard Blue made May 12 at 2014 12:26 PM

2014-05-12T12:26:07-04:00

40 S&W is my choice...

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made May 12 at 2014 12:35 PM

2014-05-12T12:35:32-04:00

Mostly as a yearning for the early years of my career handling that M1911A1 and the stopping power that was contained in that .45 caliber round!!

Response by SFC Stephen Carden made May 12 at 2014 2:46 PM

2014-05-12T14:46:44-04:00

I am with a lot of the others on this thread. i only picked the 9mm to be compliant with NATO. There are many better 9mm pistols than the Beretta, which IMHO is a piece of junk. I would much rather shoot a Glock or a Sig. Now, if I had my choice, it would be the Glock .40 or the tried and true M1911 .45 auto. I feel that the larger round is more effective and has more knockdown power regardless of the extra weight. I would much rather shoot a guy center mass once with the .45 and be able to turn my attention to the next threat

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made May 12 at 2014 3:00 PM

2014-05-12T15:00:35-04:00

Like you said if it comes down to having to actually use the sidearm there are probably bigger problems. I did not vote as I could go with one of two answers either the .40 or .45.

Response by SSG Robert Bramlett made May 12 at 2014 3:01 PM

2014-05-12T15:01:59-04:00

cant argue with stopping power

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2014 3:35 PM

2014-05-12T15:35:03-04:00

Everyone who says .45 is the way to go, you need to read this, especially the bottom.

I have served with the military for the past 28 years - both active and guard. I have also had the opportunity to shoot a number of different calibers of weapon during my career, including all of the ones in this survey. I own, or my family owns, both .40 and 9mm weapons, and we have even had a .38 and a .32. Of all the weapons I have and do shoot, I prefer the .40 cal over everything.

Here's why:

1) The 9mm doesn't pack enough punch in my opinion. FBI ballistics reports say different, but I also know this: In 1986, when the FBI lost two agents, and had five others injured during a massive shootout in Miami against two serial bank robbers, they switched to more powerful handguns (initially 10mm semi-autos, but later .40 cal).

Since that time, more than 60% of police departments have switched to the .40 cal.

2) 10mm is almost non-existent due to the high recoil (the 10mm has more recoil than a .45), but it does have plenty of stopping power. It also has a tendency to over-penetrate - that is, punch through one person and hit another you don't necessarily want to hit. While some say the mantra should be one-shot two-kills, there are too many situations that can arise where you DON'T want that.

3) .38, and .357 are primarily used in revolvers, which are problematic to reload quickly, though the .357 has plenty of punch.

4) While the .45 has plenty of stopping power, and the recoil is manageable for most males, there is a penalty in the number of rounds one is able to carry in a single magazine (7+1 in an old 1911 style, and at best 13+1 in a SA XD(M) full size).

5) A .40 cal is more manageable for smaller framed females, has less recoil, and typically carries anywhere from 10 to 16 rounds (16+1 for the Springfield Armory XD(M) full size pistol) in the magazine. It also has plenty of stopping power and penetration (for shooting through vehicle glass). It is an excellent compromise between the high capacity of 9mm pistols and the stopping power of a .45.

Here's a final thought too: Normally, people - esp. those who like to think they are aces, say that you shouldn't need a lot of rounds if you're a good shot. Well, here's my reply: Better to be carrying a lot of rounds and NOT need them, then to run out in an unexpected 5-bad guys against one situation and be DEAD!

Oh, and a sub-comment: If the .40 is the go-to choice for most police departments, then it should be the go-to choice for the military.

Our treaty with NATO was designed in the 1970's when we expected to go to war with communist Russia, and all our allies were using 9mm.

.45, while apparently the choice of weapon here, just doesn't make sense when you consider that females have to be able to COMFORTABLY USE the weapon as well and many CAN NOT use a .45 comfortably due to the fact that they tend to have SMALLER HANDS than males. We are NOT an all male army/military. .40 cal has a smaller frame, more rounds, less recoil, and good stopping power, it really can't be beat when you consider ALL the facts that you need to consider.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made May 12 at 2014 9:38 PM

2014-05-12T21:38:18-04:00

What are the pros and cons of each of these weapons? Thanks!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2014 9:44 PM

2014-05-12T21:44:09-04:00

.500 S&W

Response by COL Craig Johnson made May 12 at 2014 10:55 PM

2014-05-12T22:55:21-04:00

Better velocity, better thump, more bullets than a .45 without missfeeds

Response by SSG Robert Burns made May 12 at 2014 11:11 PM

2014-05-12T23:11:22-04:00

None of the above. We need to go strictly to knife hands. Completely silent and deadly precision.

Response by Cpl James O'Rawe made May 12 at 2014 11:25 PM

2014-05-12T23:25:46-04:00

It has the better knock down power, and does not hold as much so ammo will not cost so much. Most .40's are more compact as well. So they can be concealed if need be.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made May 13 at 2014 12:04 AM

2014-05-13T00:04:54-04:00

Only if they want a handgun capable of stopping something more than a housecat. .45+p The cops need to arrest people, in combat you need to kill or be killed.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2014 12:47 AM

2014-05-13T00:47:40-04:00

I am a big fan of the M9 as it stands. Having trained with it a lot prior to an advisory mission I feel very confident in this weapon.

Response by Cpl Robert Clark made May 13 at 2014 8:10 AM

2014-05-13T08:10:11-04:00

Go back to the "man stopper"

Response by SSG Robert Burns made May 13 at 2014 11:20 AM

2014-05-13T11:20:58-04:00

Um curious in over 10 years of fighting how many people actually used their hand gun in a fight. Most people haven't even fired their M4/M16 for what it's made for.
My point is, is it enough to issue or buy everyone one?
We don't need a pistol for every person in the Army. A big waste of a lot of money.
I think BCT Commanders should be able to determine which weapon system he wants his men to use, buy it, train with it, and use it.
When a new Commander comes in that wants something else, sell the old ones, buy the new ones.

Response by SFC Lisa Dumire made May 13 at 2014 1:01 PM

2014-05-13T13:01:43-04:00

I use this as my work weapon, NC Probation.
Love how it handles and how it fits my hand

Response by SFC Erin Barnett made May 13 at 2014 1:50 PM

2014-05-13T13:50:34-04:00

I carried the .45, .38, and the 9. We should go back to the .45. The 9 doesn't have the knock down power for todays body armor. I wont even address the .38!

Response by SFC Erin Barnett made May 13 at 2014 2:11 PM

2014-05-13T14:11:22-04:00

After reading most of the responses Scott, it looks like there are 2 different debates. One on caliber, the other on manufacturer.

I do not have any issue with the M9. It always worked well, took very little to keep clean and shot well.

Again I think it is too small against body armor and vehicles today. I don't think the "allied supply chain" holds water any more either and will not unless we have another world war.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2014 9:09 PM

2014-05-13T21:09:40-04:00

I am a 40 kind of guy myself especially with a hollow point to boot. it has the stopping power and is very user friendly as well.

Response by Jason Gaus made May 14 at 2014 11:56 AM

2014-05-14T11:56:28-04:00

We should go back to the .45 acp. The round has much better terminal ballistics and with today's models available capacity is not an issue, since you can range from 7+1 to 14+1. The 9mm is just to light of a round. As the German's found out in WWII,Koreans and Chinese in Korea and the N. Vietnamese in Nam.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2014 6:17 AM

2014-05-16T06:17:22-04:00

More effective size, still a high quantity of rounds in the magazine for those who aren't expert pistol shooters.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2014 10:53 PM

2014-06-14T22:53:23-04:00

You need a fine balance between a mission, accuracy and gun durability

Response by SSG Daniel Rosploch made Jun 14 at 2014 11:45 PM

2014-06-14T23:45:49-04:00

I want to see us go back to the .45 ACP but I wouldn't be upset if it was a .40 S&W either. I like the 357 and 38, but from a military conflict standpoint, I don't think either have the penetration power of the .45 ACP. I could care less if NATO doesn't use the .45, its the best military sidearm ever made, as evidenced by the success of the Model 1911.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2014 11:42 PM

2014-06-15T23:42:28-04:00

Better to have and not need than need and not have.

Response by SGT Leigh Barton made Jun 16 at 2014 3:49 AM

2014-06-16T03:49:10-04:00

The .45 ACP cartridge was the first to be designed to deliberately stop a determined opponent with the first shot.
Standardizing down to the 9 mil was a bad idea, the proper procedure would to have been to begin a NATO wide standardization after evaluating cartridges for threat reduction capacity objectively. Including cartridges for dealing with body armor needs to be addressed as well. Then begin the "standardization" process when you know what will do the job, not before. It can still be done.

Response by SPC Daniel Edwards made Jun 16 at 2014 1:54 PM

2014-06-16T13:54:02-04:00

When I deployed as maneuver (spelling?), only high ranking NCO's and officers had a side arm but they never used it. It would be good for one of those OH SHIT!! moments. The only ones that should have it is definitely those on the ground everyday. However, it should be something commander's discresion because of cost.

As far as which one, definitely something with knockdown power. When we are shooting at someone, we are not trying to be nice. Shooting with a weapon that will only slow a person down is like saying "Please stop."

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2014 4:59 PM

2014-12-09T16:59:58-05:00

All the money that would potentially be spent on a change to a different sidearm and/or caliber, to include the training, support, spare parts, etc., would better be spent on letting the units hiring some professional trainers to actually train their troops in gunfighting. Going to the range once a year and firing a couple of magazines at a paper target from 25 feet away isn't training.

Response by Cadet 4th Class Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2015 9:46 PM

2015-01-26T21:46:37-05:00

While I personally would like to see a large capacity .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol such as the FNP/FNX 45, the MK23, or the glock model 21. Each one has certain advantages, the now unfortunately discontinued FNP was a very relatively inexpensive pistol meaning the costs of arming soldiers goes down saving those all so important budget dollars, the MK23 is the most accurate and reliable, but horribly expensive, and the glock has the potential for interchangeable mags with many of the most popular SMGs which is a huge point in their favor. When the military chooses a new sidearm they must weigh the pros and cons of each and come to a decision based on what is best for the WHOLE service, not just one group or one person's beliefs of experiences, so for all we know we might wind up with something like a S&W M&P9 which is an excellent sidearm, because that's what the military needs, not us.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jan 26 at 2015 9:54 PM

2015-01-26T21:54:38-05:00

PM Soldier is working this acquisition as we speak. The military and civilian weapons experts are evaluating these weapons with lead pipe cruelty. The officers and NCOs involved are the hardest core guys you can imagine, all with combat experience. The net was cast wide for the open competition.

Response by SPC Charles Griffith made Jan 27 at 2015 3:24 AM

2015-01-27T03:24:13-05:00

M1911 Greatest sidearm ever created in my opinion ! ! ! ! ! I challenge anyone to show me any other that is 104 years old and STILL WIDELY in use today?

Response by SGT Matthew Madrid made Feb 6 at 2015 7:39 PM

2015-02-06T19:39:45-05:00

I used the M11 while in Africom PSD and it was a million times better than the M9

Response by SFC Ronnie Seaton Jr made Mar 4 at 2015 10:32 PM

2015-03-04T22:32:33-05:00

I would like to see some change in our weapons. Everything is changing, our uniforms, gear, trucks, the war fighters. Keep the 9mm caliber they are cheaper and it's the standard. No opinion on which weapon.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 14 at 2015 6:18 PM

2015-07-14T18:18:03-04:00

I like the Glock, I own three. What I really like is the simple modularity. I can convert with minimal parts to a .22 for cheap plinking. I convert to 9mm, .40 or .357 Sig easy as can be. You want a carbine, Glock can be converted to one easily. Need a auto pistol for Special Ops get a Glock 18. Need high capacity mags how does factory 32 round mags sound? Can be worked on easily, sure can. Easy to clean and maintain. All of the above reason are why we won't get one. Instead we will get the cheapest bidder, and a poor choice at that.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Aug 8 at 2015 9:31 AM

2015-08-08T09:31:21-04:00

Beretta’s fight to arm the military ...

ACCOKEEK, Md. — The letters gave Cpl. Ernest Langdon “freedom of movement” in the Panama Canal Zone. The military’s move to retire the M9 poses a new business challenge for Beretta on top of other change. After 40 years in Maryland, it’s moving its manufacturing — and several hundred jobs — out of the state in response to new gun laws that limit the sale and possession of firearms and threatened its commercial business.

The United States maintained control of the canal in 1989, when Langdon, a Marine, was stationed there. But as tensions mounted between President George H.W. Bush and Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, Langdon and his comrades were ordered to test the lines of the Panama Defense Forces to see how far those papers would take them.

On patrol in the muggy jungle, Langdon often reached for his pistol, the only weapon he carried, for a pinch of firepower — just in case. It was a Beretta M9 pistol, standard issue for U.S. servicemembers.

Here in Accokeek, at Beretta’s U.S. headquarters, workers kept those M9s rolling off the line, supplying the military long after Noriega was ousted. Production ramped up as U.S. soldiers moved on to the war zones of the Middle East: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.

Now, the military says, it’s time for a modern handgun for modern warfare. The M9 has long been a sturdy standby when things fall apart in battle — a defensive weapon. The military wants soldiers to reach for the new gun — the XM17 — going into battle.

And Beretta is suddenly fighting for a military contract worth $580 million with rivals it normally competes with in gun shops, not in defense contracting: Traditional military suppliers such as Beretta and Colt are facing competition from civilian manufacturers including Glock and Sturm, Ruger & Co.

Commercial handguns are sophisticated enough that the military would ask gunmakers to modify a civilian product to meet battlefield specifications. They’re durable, accurate, high-capacity weapons, perhaps giving civilian gunmakers the upper hand for the first time in military contracting history, gun experts say.

Losing a military contract can spell disaster for corporations that have relied on them to carry their brands. Colt, which made the M1911 pistol, the military’s sidearm for 70 years before the M9, filed for bankruptcy this summer, capping a decades-long decline touched off by the loss of the M1911 contract.

Read more at ...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/beretta%e2%80%99s-fight-to-arm-the-military/ar-BBluqmo

Beretta’s fight to arm the military

The letters gave Cpl. Ernest Langdon “freedom of movement” in the Panama Canal Zone.The military’s...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2015 9:41 AM

2015-08-08T09:41:56-04:00

It ain't broke, why fix it?

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 8 at 2015 9:48 AM

2015-08-08T09:48:20-04:00

Yes. Federal agents use a Sig Dauer for a very good reason

Response by CPT Chris Loomis made Oct 5 at 2016 10:52 AM

2016-10-05T10:52:40-04:00

No! Keep it. It's battle trsted

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2016 6:54 PM

2016-10-05T18:54:35-04:00

Was on a JTF In Iraq, and we had an armory, and Civilian PSD, and was able to swap my M9 out for Sig Sauer P229, and loved it. We did a lot shooting with those guy's, and they are professionals. I would take that over M9,but M9 is a little more accurate.

Response by SSG Corry Struve made Oct 6 at 2016 11:49 PM

2016-10-06T23:49:03-04:00

Bring back the M1911A1.

Response by SGT James Szewczyk made Aug 4 at 2017 10:33 AM

2017-08-04T10:33:52-04:00

You need something that can compromise body armor, 6.5 is my pick. FN has one in production.