The Gun That Replaced the 1911 - VIDEO

[Amsdorf]

I enjoyed pulling together this video providing a fairly thorough overview of the history, feature, functions and, yes, controversy surrounding the Beretta 92 platform. It features accuracy demonstrations and shooting demonstrations. Hope you like it. Let me know what you think and please chime in here or on the channel with any stories of your personal experiences with the Beretta 92, or as it is known in the military, the M9.

Beretta 92 / M9 Overview - History, Functions and Shooting Demo in HD - YouTube

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bmcgilvray]

My son is currently issued one in Afghanistan where he's serving with the U.S.M.C. but he doesn't think much of it. He thinks it's a big clunk chambered for a weenie round.

I don't have a big opinion of the pistol. I've shot them and would like to have one, mostly to round out the military collection. It is big for sure but cushy to shoot.

[ericb327]

Great video. I shot one once, loved it. Too early for popcorn!

[NH_Esau]

And I'm still grumpy about it.

To be honest, I shoot it well. Only problems I ever had with it were on armory relics with a gazillion rounds in them.

Never liked DA/SA triggers, but it works fine.

I still dont like it.

There is nothing rational in that last sentence.

I still don't like it.

[pscipio03]

Apples to oranges. As a MP in the USA I carried one daily and qualified on it quarterly. I didn't need to, but I would volunteer to run ranges just so I could get out there and blow through a ton of good ol fashioned tax payer ammo.
What I like about the M9 versus 1911- takedown; second shot accuracy; no need to issue two sidearms depending on sex (women were routinely issued .38 sp); high cap; 50 out of 50 on every qual range. The safety mechanism with the firing pin breakdown thumb safety was and still is overkill to me and just one more thing to worry about.
The pros of the 1911- everything else. Center mass if a 9x19 just doesn't give me the warm and fuzzy of the .45ACP. I would never worry about a through-and-through occurring with the larger caliber. If my target is wearing body armor, the kinetic energy of the .45 will bring somebody to their knees, with the 9 some of the bigger guys could probably fight through.
If the FBI found the 9x19 insufficient, I haven't clue why the military still issues it. The 40, 45GAP, and even the 10mm are far superior.
In the end, I'm not sure I would say returning to the 1911 is the way to go. I think the polymers offer more especially with the much higher MOUT engagements over open territory in modern warfare. Concrete and brick do a number on our sidearms, and I would prefer that over steel. H&K USP platform would be my first choice, then the XD and finally the Glock. Would definately want a good rail system in the lower like the HK and Sprinfields offer.

[Amsdorf]

Thanks for the comments.

[peckman28]

I carried the M9 in Afghanistan, not a bad gun by any means. The military gets them for cheap (qual instructor told us under $300), and when fed with high quality magazines they seem to work just fine. I have no problem with them, and frankly would not see much of a point in switching unless they are also going to a different caliber.

[Amsdorf]

Thank you for your service sir. If I may ask, did you ever use it in combat?

[peckman28]

Luckily I did not have to shoot at anyone with it. All the ones we qualified on ran fine, no one had any failures, even with the beat up ones though. I am sure it isn't the absolute best combat pistol ever by any means, but it just doesn't seem to me that the costs and difficulty of replacing it across the whole military is really justified, short of switching to a new caliber as well, as the gun is a fundamentally sound design and the costs are sunk at this point. If we go to a new caliber we should also investigate other makes and models, but staying with the 9mm and switching to a new platform in that chambering just doesn't make sense to me, seems like a waste of money. Go to a .40 or back to the .45 though, and I say look at the Glocks and M&P lines, just for starters.

[wmhawth]

As a civillian owner of the 92FS I have been pleased with it but can't lay claim to having put it to the kind of tests a combat soldier would have to. I would think the military might be better served by the Glock 17 owing to it's simplicity, easy maintenance and reliability. Thanks for a great review of the Beretta.

[BaconHunter]

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed the video. It pointed out some things about its design I had failed to notice when shooting the one I recently picked up used. The Beretta does seem very accurate and I love the trigger pull in single action mode. I'm not a big fan of the grip though, it feels wide to me compared to other double stack 9s.

[Amsdorf]

I think people with big paws, like me, like a larger grip, I know I'm always more accurate with it than I am with other pistols.

[retsupt99]

Many years ago...
I had the Beretta 92G/SD...a great gun, but pretty bulky for CCW...IMHO
It was dependable, easy to break down, and a very accurate shooter.
I probably should have kept it...just to have one.

[OPFOR]

Carried one in Afghanistan (and stateside) as well. Big, safety is "wrong" to many shooters used to other styles, and the open slide somehow never seems right to me.... But that said, it's a good, solid, ACCURATE, reliable pistol (as long as you use good mags, but that can be said about any magazine fed weapon).

I only fired it "in anger" to shoot a dog off of my RTO, but it did that job admirably.

[pscipio03]

Carried one in Afghanistan (and stateside) as well. Big, safety is "wrong" to many shooters used to other styles, and the open slide somehow never seems right to me.... But that said, it's a good, solid, ACCURATE, reliable pistol (as long as you use good mags, but that can be said about any magazine fed weapon).

I only fired it "in anger" to shoot a dog off of my RTO, but it did that job admirably.

+1 on reliable. It's the actual caliber I have heartburn with.