The last M9's have been delivered...an end of an era (also pic of upcoming "M9A4")

[PGT]

Last week marked an end of an era for #Beretta (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=Beretta) USA. The Beretta USA team in Gallatin, Tennessee, packed and shipped the last Beretta M9 pistol for the US Armed Forces contract. Thank you to every Beretta USA team member who, over the last 36 years, has proudly manufactured the M9, and especially to all our brave servicewomen and men who have carried the M9 in their service to the United States of America.

http://i.imgur.com/n8EMDimh.png (https://imgur.com/n8EMDim)

http://i.imgur.com/UjcTzcph.jpg (https://imgur.com/UjcTzcp)

http://i.imgur.com/ZBswRWJh.png (https://imgur.com/ZBswRWJ)

The eagle-eyed will spot the "M9A4", a forthcoming commercial offering with an optics ready slide. Member "CKD Arms" posted pics of a 92X he received into inventory last week with the same-style slide.

Believe it is an LE/MIL catalog item (or will be going forward, hopefully general release too).

https://i.imgur.com/izd5okIh.png

[Controlledpairs2]

wow. end of an era indeed.

[fixer]

Very cool.

[19852+]

As a fan of the Beretta 92 series I hope Beretta USA continues to develop and refine the pistol.

[Sammy1]

One of the videos from Afghanistan showed the locals going through a pile of blue Beretta handgun boxes left behind. Sad.

[PGT]

As a fan of the Beretta 92 series I hope Beretta USA continues to develop and refine the pistol.

The pics above show they're doing exactly that

[Suvorov]

One of the videos from Afghanistan showed the locals going through a pile of blue Beretta handgun boxes left behind. Sad.

I saw those too. I guess the M9 will start showing up in all the s-holes of the world soon. Regardless it served me well and hopefully these newest pistols will mean that service members will continue to be issued them for some years to come. Hopefully the new owners find the double to single action transition too hard to master.

Not sure how long it is going to take to fully replace them. I was looking the other day if there has been a tanker holster developed yet for the Sig and I couldn’t find one. Sure would suck if tankers are being issued pistols for which they don’t have a suitable way of carrying them.

[Sammy1]

I saw those too. I guess the M9 will start showing up in all the s-holes of the world soon. Regardless it served me well and hopefully these newest pistols will mean that service members will continue to be issued them for some years to come. Hopefully the new owners find the double to single action transition too hard to master.

Not sure how long it is going to take to fully replace them. I was looking the other day if there has been a tanker holster developed yet for the Sig and I couldn’t find one. Sure would suck if tankers are being issued pistols for which they don’t have a suitable way of carrying them.

I joined in 1987, infantry. Around 1989 I became an A-gunner and then gunner (M60). Was issued and qual'd with a 1911. Started seeing M9s in the armory but never got to take one in the field. The process takes awhile.

[JRB]

End of an era, indeed. The other day I saw a USAF A1C gate guard carrying an M9 instead of the usual Sig. It was slow so I asked him 'still rocking an M9?' and he said 'yeah, I like them but nobody else does so they let me keep it'

The Army hasn't allowed so much user preference, at least from what I've observed. If they're getting M17's everyone goes M17's and the M9's get shipped back somewhere. I'm assuming that more Reserve and Guard support units will get M9's since M9's have historically been very scarce in those commands.



I saw those too. I guess the M9 will start showing up in all the s-holes of the world soon. Regardless it served me well and hopefully these newest pistols will mean that service members will continue to be issued them for some years to come. Hopefully the new owners find the double to single action transition too hard to master.

Not sure how long it is going to take to fully replace them. I was looking the other day if there has been a tanker holster developed yet for the Sig and I couldn’t find one. Sure would suck if tankers are being issued pistols for which they don’t have a suitable way of carrying them.

An old friend was the company Armorer in a Paladin unit as the M17's were rolled out, and they issued a Safariland MOLLE adapter with the TL7 Safariland holsters and those adapters were used on a 'tactical fishing vest' MOLLE LBE or their plate carrier/IOTV - worn in a strong-side tanker style position on the front of the chest in most cases.
He also observed some guys setting up the drop leg to be worn on the front of the thigh instead of the side so it all fit easier when sitting in the track. He initially disapproved of this practice but gave up as more and more folks did it. Given the universal emphasis on IOTV's and plate carriers for Soldiers, I'd be surprised if a traditional tanker style holster was ever offered.

[TGS]

The Army hasn't allowed so much user preference, at least from what I've observed. If they're getting M17's everyone goes M17's and the M9's get shipped back somewhere. I'm assuming that more Reserve and Guard support units will get M9's since M9's have historically been very scarce in those commands.

Given how many M16A2s are still floating around in those same units, I imagine the last soldier to carry an M9 hasn't even been born yet.

[Sammy1]

Given how many M16A2s are still floating around in those same units, I imagine the last soldier to carry an M9 hasn't even been born yet.

Exactly. I swear I saw an A1 deployed by the Guard at the Capitol.

[Suvorov]

An old friend was the company Armorer in a Paladin unit as the M17's were rolled out, and they issued a Safariland MOLLE adapter with the TL7 Safariland holsters and those adapters were used on a 'tactical fishing vest' MOLLE LBE or their plate carrier/IOTV - worn in a strong-side tanker style position on the front of the chest in most cases.
He also observed some guys setting up the drop leg to be worn on the front of the thigh instead of the sde so it all fit easier when sitting in the track. He initially disapproved of this practice but gave up as more and more folks did it. Given the universal emphasis on IOTV's and plate carriers for Soldiers, I'd be surprised if a traditional tanker style holster was ever offered.

The Paladin is a little different that a tank in the way that the primary way to get into the vehicle is through the big doors in the back. I could see a drop leg rig not being as big of an issue with that. I wore a drop leg when I was playing S-2 for my battalion and it would get hung up and caught on just about everything when I would climb into the tank when I needed to find a "safe space" and hide from the BN Commander. The "tactical fishing vest" seems like it would the better answer but still prone to getting caught on stuff. Honestly I don't know what the current combat uniform is for tankers - a quick google search is showing recent photos of tankers wearing the new multi-cam ACUs, green Nomax "Tanker Pajamas" with soft armor over the top or either and plate carriers. In all cases, the M7 holster seems to been the best option, but it won't fit the Sig.

ETA - Found a photo of a crew outside the tank wearing TL7s with M17s on their hip. It will be interesting to see what develops.....

[Hambo]

Given how many M16A2s are still floating around in those same units, I imagine the last soldier to carry an M9 hasn't even been born yet.

Given how many people in the armed forces carry pistols, how little most of them use them, and that we started buying the replacement long before the last M9s were delivered, I suspect you're correct. It warms my heart to think that there's a NIB M9 waiting for some little guy who was born today. :cool:

[farscott]

Going back to the XM9 pistol trials and the Beretta win(s), the sentiment about the M9 has changed 180 degrees. In the 1980s, the M9 was a sissy pistol for men not able to shoot JMB's .45. It broke and could not handle SEALs training regimens. Thirty-five years later, the issues are down to hand fit, magazine interior finish, and the original locking block design stress risers.

Not many .MIL weapons actually get better reputations as they are used. Beretta USA has been and continues to be a class act from moving from MD to TN to developing new versions of the M9 to providing excellent customer service.

[claymore504]

Sad end for sure. While on active duty in the Infantry, I never had to carry the M9. I did not really have an opinion on it. Then I later came to love the M9 and that love deepened with the Elite LTT. With the M17, I was suprised how fast I started seeing it. I currently serve in the TXARNG and I started seeing it in holsters pretty quickly after it was adopted.

[claymore504]

Given how many M16A2s are still floating around in those same units, I imagine the last soldier to carry an M9 hasn't even been born yet.

Very well could be true. I am curently serving at a training facility in the TXARNG and we still see some Army reserve units come through with the M16A2. I bet we will see these units with the M9 for many more years. Most ARNG Infantry units that come through now have the M17.

[Controlledpairs2]

https://www.beretta.com/en-us/m9a4-full-size/?utm_campaign=M9A4%20Launch&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=159156540&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9CvqDBqF9PY2qyReL9BnsGUhvx_PlmqkDX1tYJH7O1Y2MvejkZ wwKJkv8NSi7PrLdM2MvNTQY5RBxK4HUbpuEko6VCAPYf84qtsi E04cYpmawx_Mk&utm_content=159157855&utm_source=hs_email

[Noah]

I'm surprised but it appears to ship with the excellent Mec Gar 18 round magazine.

[Yung]

It's just a good, solid, pistol!

atwater.jpg

[Suvorov]

https://www.beretta.com/en-us/m9a4-full-size/?utm_campaign=M9A4%20Launch&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=159156540&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9CvqDBqF9PY2qyReL9BnsGUhvx_PlmqkDX1tYJH7O1Y2MvejkZ wwKJkv8NSi7PrLdM2MvNTQY5RBxK4HUbpuEko6VCAPYf84qtsi E04cYpmawx_Mk&utm_content=159157855&utm_source=hs_email

Looks very nice - I wonder how this will affect Langton’s sales as far as optic ready pistols go?

[Controlledpairs2]

Looks very nice - I wonder how this will affect Langton’s sales as far as optic ready pistols go?

I’m think very little. The LTT plates use 3 screws and sits lower. I think that’s what people want out of most PMO solutions.

I have small hands but I still prefer the M9A1 frames of the LTT vs the Vertec frames. Seems like the extra grip material helps me torque the pistol and increase support hand contact.

[ssb]

Speaking for myself, I’ll be sticking with Langdon’s plate design for future Berettas. The OEM offering looks obnoxiously tall, particularly once BUIS are considered.

[awp_101]

For just a fun gun with little to no need for BUIS, I’d consider the A4 but for a duty or other serious use pistol I’d go LTT no question.

[rcbusmc24]

I've still got Infantry rifle company machine gunners coming through the raid course carrying the M9. Recon, PMO and some others have the M18 but I don't think they are getting pushed out to the fleet units very quickly compared to the Army.

[Gumby]

Anyone know the total number of M9's delivered to the US military from 1985? I emailed BerettaUSA but haven't received a reply.

[Horseman]

So, I'm gonna have to wait awhile before putting in paperwork for that M9 through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, huh?

:rolleyes:

[TGS]

Anyone know the total number of M9's delivered to the US military from 1985? I emailed BerettaUSA but haven't received a reply.

Somewhere around 618,000 if we take this article as accurate:

https://www.military.com/kitup/2014/07/army-buys-more-m9-pistols.html

[Gumby]

Somewhere around 618,000 if we take this article as accurate:

https://www.military.com/kitup/2014/07/army-buys-more-m9-pistols.html

Thank you!

[KellyinAvon]

So, I'm gonna have to wait awhile before putting in paperwork for that M9 through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, huh?

:rolleyes:

You beat me to it! Lets see, my CMP 1911A1 went through the Anniston Depot in September 1980. I got it in 2019. That means... I'll be dead before my CMP random number comes up.

[Cory]

I trained with the M9 as an MP in the ARNG. I carried one on deployment doing PTT, PSD, and the like. I now carry an Langdon M9 as a civilian. I love the M9.

[claymore504]

I've still got Infantry rifle company machine gunners coming through the raid course carrying the M9. Recon, PMO and some others have the M18 but I don't think they are getting pushed out to the fleet units very quickly compared to the Army.

Not sure if it still stands true, but many years ago when I was on active duty in the 82nd, we would have marines come train at Bragg and they would be blown away by how new our gear and weapons were. Thier stuff was very old compared to us and they told us they always got new stuff way later than the Army.

[revchuck38]

Not sure if it still stands true, but many years ago when I was on active duty in the 82nd, we would have marines come train at Bragg and they would be blown away by how new our gear and weapons were. Thier stuff was very old compared to us and they told us they always got new stuff way later than the Army.

This goes way back. The Marines went ashore on Guadalcanal carrying '03 Springfields. It probably goes back farther than that, but that's the first example that comes to mind.

[MandoWookie]

This goes way back. The Marines went ashore on Guadalcanal carrying '03 Springfields. It probably goes back farther than that, but that's the first example that comes to mind.

IIRC that was a deliberate choice by the USMC, they had access to M1s, but decided that it wasn't worth the disruption in training and supply while they were rapidly trying to build up.
There was also the sentiment that the Marines on the ground would have preference for the tried and true over an unproven semi-auto.

[Controlledpairs2]

Seems to me the Marine Corps has been trying to stay on the cutting edge for the ground fighter. Sure they have less to spend, but they also don't have the same Army expenses as the Army has to provide broader combined arms and sustainment functions for what was air-land battle and will be someday multi-domain operations.

If we consider the M9A1 and the Marines Corps looking ahead to using weaponlights, the H&K IAR, adopting of the 416 platform, and wider adoption of suppressors the MC is doing alright and on a good trajectory to make each ground combat oriented Marine a little better than its Army counterpart. That is just for now, as the Army is undergoing serious modernization over the next decade.

[Tabasco]

It broke and could not handle SEALs training regimens.

I believe that Beretta was using slides from some other source for those pistols, and they were not heat treated properly (something like that). The slides broke at the breach and the rear portion of the slide impacted the shooters face. Beretta claimed that the SEAL's were using hot sub gun ammo (which they weren't), the SEAL's said FU Beretta and went back their SIG's until the Glock 19.

[TGS]

I believe that Beretta was using slides from some other source for those pistols, and they were not heat treated properly (something like that). The slides broke at the breach and the rear portion of the slide impacted the shooters face. Beretta claimed that the SEAL's were using hot sub gun ammo (which they weren't), the SEAL's said FU Beretta and went back their SIG's until the Glock 19.

Slight correction: Beretta's claim was that they were using improperly spec'd ammo that gave near proof pressures. Something due to out of spec interior dimensions of the cartridge down by the head, if I recall correctly. It wasn't "subgun" ammo, as the US didn't even use any hot "subgun" ammo to begin with.

[BJV]

Bartocci has an informative video (https://youtu.be/aOB4HvWSpAM) on the selection of the M9 that seems relevant here.

[Suvorov]

Slight correction: Beretta's claim was that they were using improperly spec'd ammo that gave near proof pressures. Something due to out of spec interior dimensions of the cartridge down by the head, if I recall correctly. It wasn't "subgun" ammo, as the US didn't even use any hot "subgun" ammo to begin with.


Bartocci has an informative video (https://youtu.be/aOB4HvWSpAM) on the selection of the M9 that seems relevant here.

I have some of that early Winchester M882 ammo. It is stout shooting stuff, very noticeable and I believe it is a much later production to what caused the slide failures. I gave Doc a box of it to shoot which he has detailed.

[MrInox]

I believe that Beretta was using slides from some other source for those pistols, and they were not heat treated properly (something like that). The slides broke at the breach and the rear portion of the slide impacted the shooters face. Beretta claimed that the SEAL's were using hot sub gun ammo (which they weren't), the SEAL's said FU Beretta and went back their SIG's until the Glock 19.


What I heard was that when beretta won the contract to provide the French army with 92s they had to make them (or at least the initial batch) with a certain steel that the French themselves provided. This steel was brittle and slides made from it wouldn’t last past 10,000 rounds. Beretta used that steel in a batch of guns that went to the seals and that’s why the slides broke.

[JSGlock34]

I suggest reading the 1988 GAO report on the M9 failures (https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-88-213.pdf). Note that the first NSW slide failures were observed with the commercial 92SB.

Though I understand that the early French 92G (produced under license as the PAMAS G1) had brittle slides (reportedly associated with the use of tellurium in the steel specified/provided by the French), the French adopted the pistol in 1989 (after the documented US slide failures). Though I've seen speculation that the tellurium slides produced for the French contract could have found their way to the US in the early days of the M9 program, I've never quite understood how the timing aligned, or why it would affect commercially produced pistols. I seem to recall a magazine article from the time trying to make that connection.

[RAM Engineer]

I wonder when LTT will introduce an Acro plate.

[JonInWA]

IIRC that was a deliberate choice by the USMC, they had access to M1s, but decided that it wasn't worth the disruption in training and supply while they were rapidly trying to build up.
There was also the sentiment that the Marines on the ground would have preference for the tried and true over an unproven semi-auto.

The were also cursed with their deliberately chosen issued submachine gun, the Reising, which defined the concept of "piece of junk." There was also some selective issue (possibly to Marine Raiders) of the Johnson semi-automatic rifle, which was another epic fail; the M1 was far, far better, which the Marines quickly realized and subsequently issued. Neither the Reising or the Johnson survived the crucible of Guadalcanal.

Best, Jon

[Bigghoss]

Saw a post on Reddit of a possible M9A4 Centurion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Beretta/comments/pr2hvh/m9a4_will_have_a_centurion_variant/

https://i.imgur.com/qKbI9Mk.jpg

Looking at the barrel length I thought 4.7" was the Vertec flush barrel length and the Centurion/compact was shorter, like 4.5". I looked up the length of a threaded compact barrel on the BUSA website and it's 4.8". So I'm not sure what's up. Could be a Centurion with a threaded barrel. Could be a fullsize with a flush barrel for states that don't allow threaded barrels. I would be stoked for either option. I kinda regret selling my Vertec and an M9A3/A4 with a flush barrel would be pretty much the exact same thing. But I really dig Centurions and I can always jut put a Vertec barrel in an M9A3/A4.

[WobblyPossum]

The “TB” in the product description likely stands for Threaded Barrel. The M9A3 comes standard with a threaded barrel and the photos of the M9A4 all show a threaded barrel too. I’m betting the product you found is a Centurion with a threaded barrel.

[Bigghoss]

The “TB” in the product description likely stands for Threaded Barrel. The M9A3 comes standard with a threaded barrel and the photos of the M9A4 all show a threaded barrel too. I’m betting the product you found is a Centurion with a threaded barrel.

That makes a lot of sense. If anybody needs me I'll be over here licking this window...

[GlockenSpiel]

https://www.beretta.com/en-us/92x-rdo-full-size/?utm_campaign=92X%20RDO%20Launch&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=161333694&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--40YPOVIX4u8s6rE7hsbB9je7WQS_nVh8xD3qG43xLA-_wWYFG8MWkG7V5YxhytsY3KMqaIDA1AhqUip9JzdiW1eT5Zw&utm_content=161325966&utm_source=hs_email

And the 92x optics "RDO" version appears. I don't know who coined the term RDO but this might get confusing.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

https://www.beretta.com/en-us/92x-rdo-full-size/?utm_campaign=92X%20RDO%20Launch&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=161333694&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--40YPOVIX4u8s6rE7hsbB9je7WQS_nVh8xD3qG43xLA-_wWYFG8MWkG7V5YxhytsY3KMqaIDA1AhqUip9JzdiW1eT5Zw&utm_content=161325966&utm_source=hs_email

And the 92x optics "RDO" version appears. I don't know who coined the term RDO but this might get confusing.

You would think they could at least choose a different acronym!

[Yute]

I'm assuming that more Reserve and Guard support units will get M9's since M9's have historically been very scarce in those commands.


Our ARNG unit replaced all our M9s with M17s last year. No option to keep any M9s. All M16a2s were replaced with M4s as well.

[MandoWookie]

The were also cursed with their deliberately chosen issued submachine gun, the Reising, which defined the concept of "piece of junk." There was also some selective issue (possibly to Marine Raiders) of the Johnson semi-automatic rifle, which was another epic fail; the M1 was far, far better, which the Marines quickly realized and subsequently issued. Neither the Reising or the Johnson survived the crucible of Guadalcanal.

Best, Jon

Johnson rifle and LMG. Because both could easily dismount the barrel they were thought to be better for parachute troops. Also they were leftovers from a Dutch order that couldn't be fulfilled. So were essentially free and available, unlike the supply of Garands at the time. The Reising I think was a similar situation, it was available in quantity while the Thompson wasn't.
But neither had been designed or solicited by the USMC, or any other branch, the Reising IIRC had been developed as a police carbine, and the Johnson specifically in reaction to the early Garand issues, and was targeted toward the Marine Corps, but never actually asked for. The LMG had a better rep than the rifle, and theoretical advantages over the BAR, but both lacked the development needed to work out their issues.
Not likely that would have been enough, there is a reason there are no recoil operated rifles issued today.
I do thinks it's funny that the last few developmental versions of the Johnson LMG were just this close to being DI operated. It is no coincidence the he went on to help develop the AR10 and AR15.

https://youtu.be/JVH9aEF2EX0

Reising SMG, with the really useless wire stock.

https://youtu.be/aY19tDMDvr4

Johnson's rifle.

https://youtu.be/vf40tHdKmno

Johnson's LMG

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/rifles/johnson-m1941/

Man, I miss when Ian did actual articles.

[Inkwell 41]

I believe that Beretta was using slides from some other source for those pistols, and they were not heat treated properly (something like that). The slides broke at the breach and the rear portion of the slide impacted the shooters face. Beretta claimed that the SEAL's were using hot sub gun ammo (which they weren't), the SEAL's said FU Beretta and went back their SIG's until the Glock 19.

Isn’t this what led to the 92FS series?

In 1991, presumably because the failed slide story was making the rounds, our academy firearms instructors (and academy armorer) were spreading the word that the SEALs had been experimenting with very hot JHP loads where they had filled the cavity with C4. Then they tried using C4 instead of powder. My confidence in the FI’s (and the armorer) was significantly reduced upon hearing this old wives tale.

[TGS]

Well said, MandoWookie.

The Johnson and Reising were interim substitutes given the lack of availability of the Garand and Thompson, along with production delays of the M2 Hyde. Not "deliberate choices".

As noted the Reising was designed as a police firearm, and it was actually quite a good gun within that context; detritus under the charging handle and individually fitted, non-interchangeable parts simply weren't issues in such a use. The Johnson wasn't that terrible, either. It was actually quite good compared to other semi-automatic rifles from around the world in 1941. There were lots of good designs that didn't go past prototype or limited production simply for reasons of wartime efficiency, not because they were bad. One of the rarest American SMGs during WWII was also one of the best, the Marlin UD-42.

"Piece of junk" from WWII makes me think of something like the S&W Light Rifle. Certainly not either the Reising or Johnson.

[JSGlock34]

Isn’t this what led to the 92FS series?

Yup. Ernest Langdon describes the 'S' fix in the opening of this video far better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db8t-f54Im0&t=30s

[Maca]

Somehow I am back to carrying an LTT centurion in a 5shot SME, and it’s as comfortable as it is comforting.

77471

[TOTS]

Finally found a good place to share this gem. Our Group Duty Officer came in the other day with the most used and abused M9 I think I have seen yet!!

77473

[Suvorov]

Finally found a good place to share this gem. Our Group Duty Officer came in the other day with the most used and abused M9 I think I have seen yet!!

77473

And then people wonder why they malfunction?

[Shotgun]

I wonder if the Sig will last as long in military service as the M9 did.

[TOTS]

I wonder if the Sig will last as long in military service as the M9 did.

I don’t think so…the world has moved to a disposable/ consumable paradigm where it’s cheaper to buy new than to repair. Much of this has also trickled down into the military acquisition methodology from what I have seen. Especially when you give a Marine something made from plastic!

[JRB]

Finally found a good place to share this gem. Our Group Duty Officer came in the other day with the most used and abused M9 I think I have seen yet!!

77473

There's at least a half-dozen in our arms room that make that one look near-mint. I keep finding the old Gulf War I era parkerized magazines in our magazine box, too. I personally witnessed one of them being used by a 1LT to hammer a retaining pin into a misaligned tailgate on a humvee trailer.
Thankfully the Beretta was clear and empty, but it gave me a fucking heart attack to watch... then I yelled a lot.

[HCM]

I don’t think so…the world has moved to a disposable/ consumable paradigm where it’s cheaper to buy new than to repair. Much of this has also trickled down into the military acquisition methodology from what I have seen. Especially when you give a Marine something made from plastic!

You are correct about the disposable part I don't think he was referring to the service life of the individual guns but rather the M17/18 as a type.

[TOTS]

You are correct about the disposable part I don't think he was referring to the service life of the individual guns but rather the M17/18 as a type.

I, too, was referring to the M17/18 as a type. With the modularity of metal parts and the production method of stamping and folding, etc, I don’t see costs being as prohibitive as they used to be and the ability to jump to an updated platform as easy as molding another grip and machining another slide. As long as you stayed with the same manufacturer, it could be rolled into the current contact (if both parties agreed to); making the move to a new type relatively easy.

[HCM]

I, too, was referring to the M17/18 as a type. With the modularity of metal parts and the production method of stamping and folding, etc, I don’t see costs being as prohibitive as they used to be and the ability to jump to an updated platform as easy as molding another grip and machining another slide. As long as you stayed with the same manufacturer, it could be rolled into the current contact (if both parties agreed to); making the move to a new type relatively easy.

You’re talking about an M18a1, A2 etc.

Those sort of updates should be easy but the resistance to updates like Gen 2/3 locking blocks etc with the M9 say otherwise.

Hopefully the modular nature helps avoid some of those roadblocks as we are swing the USAF buying X compact conversion kits.

[Duelist]

I, too, was referring to the M17/18 as a type. With the modularity of metal parts and the production method of stamping and folding, etc, I don’t see costs being as prohibitive as they used to be and the ability to jump to an updated platform as easy as molding another grip and machining another slide. As long as you stayed with the same manufacturer, it could be rolled into the current contact (if both parties agreed to); making the move to a new type relatively easy.

Which is exactly what they were offered by Beretta and didn’t do: same locking block design was probably in the last gun delivered, even though there were at least two revisions in the commercial guns, and the M9A1 offering Langdon talked about a while back.

[Suvorov]

The M17/18 will serve until the next big conflict when the Army will realize that it didn’t “change land warfare as we know it” and then they will scratch their heads as to why and decide a new pistol is needed, then some O6 will see stars and the M30 will be born.

In the meantime pistol marksmanship training will still consist of “here’s your pistol - don’t shoot your foot. Don’t worry we will keep recycling you until you manage to knock 23 out of the 40 targets we present to you down.”

[Cory]

The M17/18 will serve until the next big conflict when the Army will realize that it didn’t “change land warfare as we know it” and then they will scratch their heads as to why and decide a new pistol is needed, then some O6 will see stars and the M30 will be born.

In the meantime pistol marksmanship training will still consist of “here’s your pistol - don’t shoot your foot. Don’t worry we will keep recycling you until you manage to knock 23 out of the 40 targets we present to you down.”

Hit the nail on the head. Pistol marksmanship will never be given the same amount of time or attention as BRM. It it doesn't make sense to give it the same amount of attention. However, in my experience being taught to shoot the M9, and in teaching others to shoot the M9, there isn't enough attention to the basic fundamentals of shooting as we know it. I remember seeing MPs with every grip imaginable. Cup and saucer, thumbs forward, thumb behind slide, two fingers in the trigger... stances was everything from modern iso, to modified weaver, to the weird lean back at the waist and everything in between.

Think about BRM for a moment. Starting in basic training you learn the firing cycle, parts and function and otherwise the weapon itself. Then, you spend a lot of time getting into the prone with your rifle and thinking about the process of shooting. Dry fire, repetition, focus. Then you do that again with a person who knows how to shoot looking over what you're doing. Then you go to shoot, and that person lays next to you and talks to you about what you're doing and how it's going. They examine your position, your trigger squeeze, your breath, they ask about your sight picture, they give immediate feedback, they literally coach you through every step of the process. And you haven't even made an adjustment to zero yet.

That doesn't happen with a handgun. You're usually not given unlimited access to sidearms to dryfire. Probably because there is a mystique to them in the service. Those who are teaching are usually someone who can qualify but is hardly an expert. If they can teacup through a few trigger presses to get a perfect qual then we have an SME. You might get an old powerpoint about stance, grip, trigger, ad the like. You're pretty unlikely to toe a line with a coach for each trainee who talks about specific hand placement on the pistol for you, or about how your shoulders and feet should be placed, or about how grip can cover for poor trigger pull... anything like that. Unless you have a line NCO who gives a shit nobody tells the 105lb female they need to stop leaning back at the waist and stagger their legs, or rest arms between targets. There is little to no familiarization fire, generally the concept of "zero" is disregarded completely.

So we get half informed troops, with little to no time focusing on the process in dryfire, usually no real time shooting, without any 1 on 1 coaching, and without any real time feedback from a knowledgeable instructor. Then, when they don't qualify we take whatever NCO does best on the qual and have them talk with the problem child and see if he can get them to qual. If qual attempt #3 fails we'll put the NCO on the lane next to them and make it clear we need them to qualify. If the NCO fails to play ball we mark down the soldier as the problem.

Until that level of institutional inertia changes, our particular sidearm won't matter much.

[RAM Engineer]

Anyone know any details of this "enhanced short reset Xtreme Trigger System" the M9A4 is advertised as having?

Also, does it come with the newer hard grip adapters, vs the softer Hogue-style that the M9A3 came with?

[Noah]

Anyone know any details of this "enhanced short reset Xtreme Trigger System" the M9A4 is advertised as having?

Also, does it come with the newer hard grip adapters, vs the softer Hogue-style that the M9A3 came with?

I'd imagine it's the same "X Treme S Short Reset Trigger Bar" they've had on offer since the 92X Performance came out. It uses the same principle as the LTT bar for a super short reset.

I would hope it comes with the same hard plastic wraparound grip as the 92X (non Performance) line does, but I have yet to see it mentioned that it comes with a wraparound grip at all.

[Inkwell 41]

Hit the nail on the head. Pistol marksmanship will never be given the same amount of time or attention as BRM. It it doesn't make sense to give it the same amount of attention. However, in my experience being taught to shoot the M9, and in teaching others to shoot the M9, there isn't enough attention to the basic fundamentals of shooting as we know it. I remember seeing MPs with every grip imaginable. Cup and saucer, thumbs forward, thumb behind slide, two fingers in the trigger... stances was everything from modern iso, to modified weaver, to the weird lean back at the waist and everything in between.

Think about BRM for a moment. Starting in basic training you learn the firing cycle, parts and function and otherwise the weapon itself. Then, you spend a lot of time getting into the prone with your rifle and thinking about the process of shooting. Dry fire, repetition, focus. Then you do that again with a person who knows how to shoot looking over what you're doing. Then you go to shoot, and that person lays next to you and talks to you about what you're doing and how it's going. They examine your position, your trigger squeeze, your breath, they ask about your sight picture, they give immediate feedback, they literally coach you through every step of the process. And you haven't even made an adjustment to zero yet.

That doesn't happen with a handgun. You're usually not given unlimited access to sidearms to dryfire. Probably because there is a mystique to them in the service. Those who are teaching are usually someone who can qualify but is hardly an expert. If they can teacup through a few trigger presses to get a perfect qual then we have an SME. You might get an old powerpoint about stance, grip, trigger, ad the like. You're pretty unlikely to toe a line with a coach for each trainee who talks about specific hand placement on the pistol for you, or about how your shoulders and feet should be placed, or about how grip can cover for poor trigger pull... anything like that. Unless you have a line NCO who gives a shit nobody tells the 105lb female they need to stop leaning back at the waist and stagger their legs, or rest arms between targets. There is little to no familiarization fire, generally the concept of "zero" is disregarded completely.

So we get half informed troops, with little to no time focusing on the process in dryfire, usually no real time shooting, without any 1 on 1 coaching, and without any real time feedback from a knowledgeable instructor. Then, when they don't qualify we take whatever NCO does best on the qual and have them talk with the problem child and see if he can get them to qual. If qual attempt #3 fails we'll put the NCO on the lane next to them and make it clear we need them to qualify. If the NCO fails to play ball we mark down the soldier as the problem.

Until that level of institutional inertia changes, our particular sidearm won't matter much.


You say this all like it's a bad thing..... ;)

[TGS]

Cory how many days or hours of M9 training did you get as USAMPS?

[Cory]

Cory how many days or hours of M9 training did you get as USAMPS?

Dang. That's hard to say, I went through in 2009.

I went through as part of OSUT, and it was early into what was technically AIT. I'd say there was a power point block, mild dry fire from a barrier with our DS emphasizing same side hand, eye, and foot forward. That was a single day I think. Then the range... I'm guessing over the course of 3 days. Certainly less than that if you add the total hours - but I'm trying to recall decade old information from when I was days past my 18th birthday. I learned more about the M9 when I started to live with it and handle it daily. After deployment the same rinse and repeat training happened a few times a year.

I think the only reason I paid any attention to the M9 at all was because I really didn't know how to shoot a handgun. I had shot some, but was worried about my performance so I tried to really focus. Afterwards I really took an interest.

[Stephanie B]

So we get half informed troops, with little to no time focusing on the process in dryfire, usually no real time shooting, without any 1 on 1 coaching, and without any real time feedback from a knowledgeable instructor. Then, when they don't qualify we take whatever NCO does best on the qual and have them talk with the problem child and see if he can get them to qual. If qual attempt #3 fails we'll put the NCO on the lane next to them and make it clear we need them to qualify. If the NCO fails to play ball we mark down the soldier as the problem.

Until that level of institutional inertia changes, our particular sidearm won't matter much.

Maybe the DoD ought to send in an order to Cimaron for a few hundred M1860s (https://www.cimarron-firearms.com/cimarron-1860-army-fluted-cylinder-44-cal-8.html).

:p

[Suvorov]

Cory how many days or hours of M9 training did you get as USAMPS?

I realize I’m not the one you are asking, but…

My “official” Army introduction to the M9 was at Armor Officer Basic Course which consisted of a morning of how to maintain it and an afternoon that consisted of some Fam fire with coaching and then qualification. As Cory stated, this what a case of the “one eyed leading the blind.” Fortunately for me - I had been shooting somewhat seriously for several years and was able to clear the course and gain a little cred with my classmates.

By contrast my training at FLETC consisted of five 4 hour range sessions (20 hours) along with about half that much time doing Judgmential shooting training and dry fire.

This contrast is extremely stark and shouldn’t be considering that the pistol is the PRIMARY small arm for tank crewmen. I realize that this isn’t an apples to apples comparison, that soldiers have “mastered” the rifle before being issued a pistol while FLETC is designed to teach the pistol to someone who can be assumed to have never fired a gun before, but obviously US Army pistol training is extremely wanting.

So when I heard stories if how the M9 was not as effective at dropping Iraqis climbing on to tanks - it really wasn’t hard for me to see where the problem was. That said, every time I wanted to spend more time during qualification on getting real quality pistol training for our soldiers I was always told that the goal was getting them qualified and not trained or that qualification WAS training. I then watched that same BN commander put a round into the ground in front of the 15 meter target - but he qualified and went on to get 2 stars, so what do I know?

The sad thing is that Army units have the resources they need. The TMs/FMs are actually very well written and contain TTPs from the best instructors in the world, regular Army has the AMU and the guard have their various State marksmanship units who will provide world class training on request. But in the world of ever increasing EEO, Suicide Prevention, Recruiting and Retention, Sexual Harassment, and now counter Extremist briefings, who has time to get their soldiers to the range other than for qualification? I won’t even start on holster training, so there are no surprises when NDs happen in theater as well. As Cory so eloquently pictured, in the Army at least, there is a cultural and institutional aversion to spending the needed amount of training time on the handgun. Unless Joe wears a funny colored floppy hat or lucks out and get a “gun guy” as a BN or BD commander (which is now unlikely as that officer has probably been tagged as an “extremist “) - Joe is on his own when it comes to becoming truly proficient with his pistol no matter the “M#.”

[MandoWookie]

I realize I’m not the one you are asking, but…

My “official” Army introduction to the M9 was at Armor Officer Basic Course which consisted of a morning of how to maintain it and an afternoon that consisted of some Fam fire with coaching and then qualification. As Cory stated, this what a case of the “one eyed leading the blind.” Fortunately for me - I had been shooting somewhat seriously for several years and was able to clear the course and gain a little cred with my classmates.

By contrast my training at FLETC consisted of five 4 hour range sessions (20 hours) along with about half that much time doing Judgmential shooting training and dry fire.

This contrast is extremely stark and shouldn’t be considering that the pistol is the PRIMARY small arm for tank crewmen. I realize that this isn’t an apples to apples comparison, that soldiers have “mastered” the rifle before being issued a pistol while FLETC is designed to teach the pistol to someone who can be assumed to have never fired a gun before, but obviously US Army pistol training is extremely wanting.

So when I heard stories if how the M9 was not as effective at dropping Iraqis climbing on to tanks - it really wasn’t hard for me to see where the problem was. That said, every time I wanted to spend more time during qualification on getting real quality pistol training for our soldiers I was always told that the goal was getting them qualified and not trained or that qualification WAS training. I then watched that same BN commander put a round into the ground in front of the 15 meter target - but he qualified and went on to get 2 stars, so what do I know?

The sad thing is that Army units have the resources they need. The TMs/FMs are actually very well written and contain TTPs from the best instructors in the world, regular Army has the AMU and the guard have their various State marksmanship units who will provide world class training on request. But in the world of ever increasing EEO, Suicide Prevention, Recruiting and Retention, Sexual Harassment, and now counter Extremist briefings, who has time to get their soldiers to the range other than for qualification? I won’t even start on holster training, so there are no surprises when NDs happen in theater as well. As Cory so eloquently pictured, in the Army at least, there is a cultural and institutional aversion to spending the needed amount of training time on the handgun. Unless Joe wears a funny colored floppy hat or lucks out and get a “gun guy” as a BN or BD commander (which is now unlikely as that officer has probably been tagged as an “extremist “) - Joe is on his own when it comes to becoming truly proficient with his pistol no matter the “M#.”

So, in the opinion of the folks in here who have served, what would an effective training and skills maintenance program look like for the Army( and other services too), and what would have to change institutionally to make it viable?
Was there ever a point in history that the standards and training was noticeably superior to how it is done now? And if so, how do you move the pendulum back in that direction?

[Suvorov]

So, in the opinion of the folks in here who have served, what would an effective training and skills maintenance program look like for the Army( and other services too), and what would have to change institutionally to make it viable?
Was there ever a point in history that the standards and training was noticeably superior to how it is done now? And if so, how do you move the pendulum back in that direction?

In my opinion and on the Armor track, I would like to see an instruction block, similar albeit smaller to the Basic Rifle Marksmanship training tailored to the pistol during the AIT phase of training that occurs after Basic Training. This same training would be extended to officers going through their Basic Course. Holster work MUST be a part of that training as well. I do think that if the use of the pistol is emphasized at an early stage in a soldiers career, then it will become important to them and change the culture. I can’t say for other tracks as there is less uniformity in say the infantry for who carries a pistol, but for tankers it is straight forward. But getting to that point - to convince the TRADOC guys that 16-20 more hours of training is needed for a weapon system that produces the lowest number of enemy casualties of any system, I really don’t think it’s possible unless the stars and planets align and one of our kids becomes TRADOC commander.

I don’t think the “Big Army” (the ones that don’t wear funny colored floppy hats) has ever had a period where it did pistol training right, it simply had a period where more soldiers already had the skill when they entered service. This is evident by the fact that the various high speed sloppy units went outside the Army for their pistol training when the were spun up and still do.

Obviously some units in the Army know how to do it extremely well - extending that to the Big Army is the trick.

[JonInWA]

Well said, MandoWookie.

The Johnson and Reising were interim substitutes given the lack of availability of the Garand and Thompson, along with production delays of the M2 Hyde. Not "deliberate choices".

As noted the Reising was designed as a police firearm, and it was actually quite a good gun within that context; detritus under the charging handle and individually fitted, non-interchangeable parts simply weren't issues in such a use. The Johnson wasn't that terrible, either. It was actually quite good compared to other semi-automatic rifles from around the world in 1941. There were lots of good designs that didn't go past prototype or limited production simply for reasons of wartime efficiency, not because they were bad. One of the rarest American SMGs during WWII was also one of the best, the Marlin UD-42.

"Piece of junk" from WWII makes me think of something like the S&W Light Rifle. Certainly not either the Reising or Johnson.

We're probably beating a long-dead horse here with this portion of the thread discussion, but to quote Ian V. Hogg and John S. Week's "Military Small Arms of the 20th Century 7th Edition," which I've consistantly found to be a good reference book, p 163: ...The Reising was an ingenious design which fired from a closed bolt. The internal mechanism was complicated and the pressing of the trigger set off a series of inter-related movements which culminated in the striking of the primer, a far remove from the simplicity of most open-bolt blowback mechanisms. Automatic fire was really a series of semiautomatic shots in sequence, since the mechanism always operates in the same way...The Reising proved entirely unsuitable for combat use; the complicated mechanism made no allowance for the presence of dirt or grit, which promptly jammed it, and the breech-locking recess soon attracted fouling or dirt which prevented the block from rising and thus prevented the weapon firing at all. These shortcomings were discovered in the Guadalcanal operation, where most Marines jettisoned their Reisings in favor of anything else they could find. The weapons which remained were withdrawn and issued to police and security forces in the USA where, in the absence of combat conditions, they performed quite adequately.

Similarly, regarding the Johnson Self-Loading Rifle Model 1941, on pp 287-288. "the Johnson rifle was designed shortly before WWII as a light military weapon, and it was extensively tested by the American Army and Marine Corps. Neither accepted it-which is hardly surprising as the Garand had just been put into mass-production-but Johnson obtained an order to manufacture them for Dutch forces in Sumatra and Jave. With the Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies, this contract was abruptly terminated. but as the US forces were expanding rapidlyand Garand production barely getting into stride. the US Marine Corps rapidly moved to take the balance of the order, issuing them to Raider Battalions and to their early paratroop force. They were also used to some extent by US MArines in the ETO, but expereince showed that they were less robust than the Garand, their mechanism jammed more easily, and the long exposed barrel was vulnerable to damage."

To paraphrase, both guns were sufficient in administrative, non-combat environments. Their complexity induced difficulties in combat environments and use. To a soldier, weapons such as these are indeed pieces of junk-basically paperweights to be lugged around and for which one's life, and the life of others could not be depended upon. While some of their features might be of interest to an engineer, where the rubber met the road they were both abject "fails.".

A similar debacle occurred in WWI with the Canadian Army's initially issue rifle, the Ross. It was also discarded en mass by Canadian Army soldiers in favor of the Lee Enfield.

Best, Jon

[TGS]

JonInWA

Most of the USMC Reising experience has to be taken with a grain of salt as the Marines were given the weapon with zero instruction on its proper maintenance.

It was a hand fitted gun with non-interchangeable parts. When your platoon takes a bunch of Reisings and throws them in the same bucket of solvent/fuel and reassembles them by taking random parts from the bin, the guns were obviously going to fail in a spectacular fashion. In the context of automatic guns in the 1st half of the century, that's not necessarily a fault of the gun. The USMC experience with the Reising would not have been so short and so spectacularly awful if the guns weren't set up to fail from the get-go by being reassembled after routine cleaning with non-matching parts the guns were literally incapable of functioning properly with.

Would you declare the MEUSOC 1911 to be an "abject failure" or "piece of junk" if a platoon of reconnaissance men circa 2003 put all of their sidearms into a tank of solvent and picked out random parts upon reassembly only to find out the weapons didn't function? Regardless of the shortcomings of the MEUSOC 1911, that'd be a pretty ridiculous statement, right?

If I issued the M16 to a bunch of troops deploying to southeast Asia in the 1960s and told them the guns didn't need to be maintained, it'd be a pretty ridiculous statement to call the M16 junk and an abject failure when a bunch of troops got killed when their rifle malfunctioned. Right?

If I issued the M249 to a bunch of joes and told them, "Fuck CLP, just scrape pencils against the rails for dry lubrication. Oil collects dust", and then those joes went on to have a terrible time getting their M249s to run, would that make the M249 junk and an abject failure? That'd be a pretty ridiculous statement, right?

What if, in 2021, I was cleaning a Mk19 and threw the bolt assembly into a solvent tank and then reassembled the gun, lubricating it with CLP? Would that mean the gun was an abject failure and a piece of junk because my improper cleaning procedure removed the packing grease from the bolt assembly that it depends upon for proper function?

The guns were not perfect, but that's a far stretch from declaring them junk. Nothing you wrote about the Johnson changes anything MandoWookie or I stated, and, more to the point regardless of its shortfalls the M1941 Johnson was still one of the best semiautomatic rifles available in 1941 and wholly adequate for issuance as a battle rifle if the M1 Garand wasn't available. You literally quoted some of the things we were speaking to, actually.

And, they still weren't "deliberate choices". As we stated, and as you quoted from the text, they were interim substitutes.

[TGS]

My “official” Army introduction to the M9 was at Armor Officer Basic Course which consisted of a morning of how to maintain it and an afternoon that consisted of some Fam fire with coaching and then qualification.

Ouch, that's scary. Not as bad as the Navy fleet warfare qualification, I guess. I think they shot 5 rounds just to show they know how to handle, load, and fire it. No target, no scoring. The sort of qualification that they got scored on and awarded ribbons for was entirely extracurricular and for fun, not required to actually carry a weapon.

[Suvorov]

Ouch, that's scary. Not as bad as the Navy fleet warfare qualification, I guess. I think they shot 5 rounds just to show they know how to handle, load, and fire it. No target, no scoring. The sort of qualification that they got scored on and awarded ribbons for was entirely extracurricular and for fun, not required to actually carry a weapon.

I honestly thought the Marines would do better. :(

I’ve said many times here how I think the M17/18 program was a tremendous waste of tax payer money, but as I’ve witnessed the past two stimulus packages, I realize that things like this are drops in the bucket.

By Beretta fan boy status not withstanding, I just want our troops to have the training they deserve.

Most soldiers will never need a pistol, but if they do - they REALLY NEED IT!

[WobblyPossum]

My unit handed out M9s during our pre-deployment training. Pretty much everyone was handed one because, at the time, the powers that be decided every NY Army National Guard soldier deploying would have at least two weapon systems issued to them. The training consisted of a couple of the squad leaders showing you how to field strip and clean the gun. Actual marksmanship instruction consisted of “don’t shoot yourself or your buddy.” We qualified once so it could be documented. Then we didn’t train on the guns at all. There was an SF unit on our FOB and one of their NCOs agreed to teach our platoon a quick handgun class in theater. This occurred near the end of our deployment.

[TGS]

I honestly thought the Marines would do better. :(


They did, and do.

That was the Navy fleet warfare qualification; think sailors standing watch on the boat. USMC is totally different.

[Suvorov]

They did, and do.

That was the Navy fleet warfare qualification; think sailors standing watch on the boat. USMC is totally different.

Check

[Cory]

So, in the opinion of the folks in here who have served, what would an effective training and skills maintenance program look like for the Army( and other services too), and what would have to change institutionally to make it viable?
Was there ever a point in history that the standards and training was noticeably superior to how it is done now? And if so, how do you move the pendulum back in that direction?

I was a ARNG guy who was an MP for a contract and got out as an E5. A nobody. That's so outside my lane I wouldn't know where to start.

I'm sure increased time and focus would be required.

[MandoWookie]

I was a ARNG guy who was an MP for a contract and got out as an E5. A nobody. That's so outside my lane I wouldn't know where to start.

I'm sure increased time and focus would be required.

Your opinion on how you think your training was handled, and how you would like to see it changed, in is your lane, because how 'nobody's' get trained is the crux of the question.

[Tabasco]

Back in 1982 when I went through Armor School, we had 1911's. We had a day of classroom training on field stripping, basic maintenance, etc. on both the 1911 and the M3 SMG. The 1911 qualification was to shoot 30 rounds (I think) at pop up targets at various ranges, with a couple of slide lock reloads. Sometimes two targets sometimes one would pop up. The M3 was a fam fire type thing with crappy mags that didn't last too long, with my DS telling us that if we ever had to use a long gun in combat, ditch the M3 and pick up an M16 as there will be plenty lying around.

I qualified Expert, as I used to shoot my Dad's surplus 1911 as a kid and was already familiar with handgun shooting. Seems like things have really gone down hill for the Army training wise.

[revchuck38]

Suvorov - Way back when I was an HHC commander we had an M578 tracked recovery vehicle in the maintenance section. The individual weapons for the crew were M3A1 grease guns. It’s a shame something like that isn’t issued to DATs anymore. :)

[TGS]

So, in the opinion of the folks in here who have served, what would an effective training and skills maintenance program look like for the Army( and other services too), and what would have to change institutionally to make it viable?

In the context of reality where you objectively have greater training and operational priority than pistol training: easier, last-minute access to ranges, guns, and training ammunition and a widespread availability of competent instructors instead of T3-stye instructors.

Training areas on most bases are booked months, even a year in advance, it's just terribly difficult to do anything beyond the mandated baseline. So if your random XYZ event gets cancelled for tomorrow at 10am, it's virtually impossible to say, "No problem, we'll go hit up the range instead". Such would allow a more productive use of time than a hip-pocket class could ever hope to achieve, and greater morale instead of getting some terrible quality hip-pocket class that makes you want to become an alcoholic......or, even more common....getting told to field-day the barracks and getting otherwise fucked with.

That would cost money, though. There's extremely little opportunity for NCOs and officers to freelance their guys with something actually productive, ranges being one thing.


Seems like things have really gone down hill for the Army training wise.

I think a better way of putting it is that the world advanced and the military has had trouble keeping up with advances.

[revchuck38]

^^^^On top of that, the first sergeant can’t just call up the ASP and tell them “Hey, we need x amount of ammo for tomorrow because some other unit canceled their range.” That has to be forecast and budgeted way in advance.

If folks in the military want more/better weapons training, they have to do it like cops do - on their own time and on their own dime, and additionally with their own weapon.

[Suvorov]

Back in 1982 when I went through Armor School, we had 1911's. We had a day of classroom training on field stripping, basic maintenance, etc. on both the 1911 and the M3 SMG. The 1911 qualification was to shoot 30 rounds (I think) at pop up targets at various ranges, with a couple of slide lock reloads. Sometimes two targets sometimes one would pop up. The M3 was a fam fire type thing with crappy mags that didn't last too long, with my DS telling us that if we ever had to use a long gun in combat, ditch the M3 and pick up an M16 as there will be plenty lying around.

I qualified Expert, as I used to shoot my Dad's surplus 1911 as a kid and was already familiar with handgun shooting. Seems like things have really gone down hill for the Army training wise.

Doesn’t really sound like you got much more than I did. Was that Armor OBC or AIT? Had you not trained with your Dad’s 1911 do you think you would have shot expert? The qualification course sounds similar. I guess the point of my rants is that I do not believe the Big Army spends enough time training soldiers to handle and fight with the pistol, then when reports of the pistol not performing well in combat come forth, they decide the answer is to replace the current pistol.


Suvorov - Way back when I was an HHC commander we had an M578 tracked recovery vehicle in the maintenance section. The individual weapons for the crew were M3A1 grease guns. It’s a shame something like that isn’t issued to DATs anymore. :)

When I took my job as XO of my new Guard unit I performed my first inspection of the arms room. There was a locker with a padlock and the supply sergeant had no idea what was in it. We cut the lock and found 4 M3s. They weren’t on any of our books. My first thought was to go to the WalMart and buy a bunch of 45 ammo but sadly there were no magazines…..

[revchuck38]

Oh, we had some magazines, but at the time (‘87) .45 ammo was unobtanium for submachine guns. We still had 1911s and could barely get enough for annual qualification. This was a USAR MI battalion.

[MandoWookie]

In the context of reality where you objectively have greater training and operational priority than pistol training: easier, last-minute access to ranges, guns, and training ammunition and a widespread availability of competent instructors instead of T3-stye instructors.

Training areas on most bases are booked months, even a year in advance, it's just terribly difficult to do anything beyond the mandated baseline. So if your random XYZ event gets cancelled for tomorrow at 10am, it's virtually impossible to say, "No problem, we'll go hit up the range instead". Such would allow a more productive use of time than a hip-pocket class could ever hope to achieve, and greater morale instead of getting some terrible quality hip-pocket class that makes you want to become an alcoholic......or, even more common....getting told to field-day the barracks and getting otherwise fucked with.

That would cost money, though. There's extremely little opportunity for NCOs and officers to freelance their guys with something actually productive, ranges being one thing.



I think a better way of putting it is that the world advanced and the military has had trouble keeping up with advances.

So before any theoretical training improvements could be made, the range access and infrastructure would have to be improved?

[TGS]

So before any theoretical training improvements could be made, the range access and infrastructure would have to be improved?

I can't speak for all military bases, but yeah I'm under the impression most of them are pretty much maxed out on training area availability.

Can't spend more time at the range if there's no available range to spend time at, no ammo to shoot, and no truly qualified personnel to teach instead of relying on T3-type instructors like we use now.

[Stephanie B]

Ouch, that's scary. Not as bad as the Navy fleet warfare qualification, I guess. I think they shot 5 rounds just to show they know how to handle, load, and fire it. No target, no scoring. The sort of qualification that they got scored on and awarded ribbons for was entirely extracurricular and for fun, not required to actually carry a weapon.

I think that the “fire five rounds off the fantail” course of qualification went away in the early ‘80s.

[TGS]

I think that the “fire five rounds off the fantail” course of qualification went away in the early ‘80s.

My brother reported this to me in the 2000s. He made a special effort to point out the difference between the fleet warfare qual to stand watch with a firearm vs the ribbon he had for shooting a given score on a bullseye course.

ETA: Maybe Trooper224 can ask his son that recently left the Navy. My brother has been in port assignments for a while, so I don't think he would have any updated info.

[peterb]

I think that the “fire five rounds off the fantail” course of qualification went away in the early ‘80s.

Heck, I did that on a tiger cruise. Didn’t know I was qualified. ;-)

[Duelist]

I never fired an M9 or M11 or any other military-owned pistol while in the military. I carried an M9 an awful lot in theater, and occasionally an M11. I had spent the time and money on my own to be a bit more than familiar with pistol shooting and with those specific pistols. I am a much better pistol shooter now.

Hip pocket training with that unit while stuck at an airfield waiting on an aircraft to carry us where we needed to go included working with every weapon in the unit to refresh how they worked, even though we may not have had any ammunition to shoot

One day in theater, while walking up to a building where weapons had to be cleared at clearing barrels before entry, I watched a line of VIP visiting officers and senior NCOs clearing their M9s. I arrived at the back of the line where a female O4 was hanging back, letting everyone else go ahead and finish and enter the building before she pulled out her M9.

And stared at the thing, like it was a completely foreign contraption she had no idea what to do with. And then she started poking it with her support hand index finger. The muzzle was pointing off God knows where. I, a bearded gent with a ponytail and civvies (I was on a special assignment) stepped up next to her unaware of her surroundings person, reached over and wrapped my hand around the slide and trigger guard and took it right out of her hand.

“Ma’am, why don’t you let me remind you how this works, okay?” And then proceeded to demonstrate every control, the sequence of loading and unloading, showed her the opening in the clearing barrel and said, “always put the muzzle in that hole before you start this stuff,” handed it back and had her do it three times in a row. After she finished the third time, she thanked me and went on to do her VIP tour.

That spoke volumes to me about how much the military values training on the pistol: I had never officially qualified with one, but was handed one to carry as needed due to demonstrated competence with them, and someone issued one as her only weapon had to get taught by me on a FOB in a crappy third world hell hole how to not shoot herself or someone else while trying to use a clearing barrel.

[SecondsCount]

Going back to the XM9 pistol trials and the Beretta win(s), the sentiment about the M9 has changed 180 degrees. In the 1980s, the M9 was a sissy pistol for men not able to shoot JMB's .45. It broke and could not handle SEALs training regimens. Thirty-five years later, the issues are down to hand fit, magazine interior finish, and the original locking block design stress risers.

Not many .MIL weapons actually get better reputations as they are used. Beretta USA has been and continues to be a class act from moving from MD to TN to developing new versions of the M9 to providing excellent customer service.
I remember those days as well. Even Ruger was butthurt that they didn't win.

Now Sig seems to be receiving a lot of the same hate. You can't please them all I guess.

[MandoWookie]

I can't speak for all military bases, but yeah I'm under the impression most of them are pretty much maxed out on training area availability.

Can't spend more time at the range if there's no available range to spend time at, no ammo to shoot, and no truly qualified personnel to teach instead of relying on T3-type instructors like we use now.

What is the cause of this I wonder? Legacy locations of established bases that used to be more isolated, but are now surrounded by development? Or is it something else?

[MandoWookie]

I remember those days as well. Even Ruger was butthurt that they didn't win.

Now Sig seems to be receiving a lot of the same hate. You can't please them all I guess.

Oh god, imagine if the P85 somehow managed to win? I wonder how it would have held up through the years in service.

[HCM]

What is the cause of this I wonder? Legacy locations of established bases that used to be more isolated, but are now surrounded by development? Or is it something else?

Some of the reasons you cited plus many others.

One issue is simply building out the available land on the base. The area necessary for ranges is much larger than you think:


For safety purposes, each munitions training range is associated with a safety buffer area, called a surface danger zone (SDZ).

What is a Surface Danger Zone?

An SDZ is an area associated with a training range that is designed to protect people during weapons training. It may include land, water, and airspace. When a range is in active use, the SDZ is an exclusion area that is strictly controlled and could contain projectiles, fragments, or components from firing, launching, or detonating weapons and explosives.

An SDZ is comprised of three parts:

1. Weapons Firing Position: Position from which the munitions are fired.

2. Impact Area: The target or intended area of munitions impact where munitions and munitions fragments are expected to land.

3. Secondary Danger Area: A safety buffer area where fragments from munitions may land.

Code of Federal Regulations (Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Part 334 Danger Zones and Restricted Area Regulations, Section 440).

These regulations include safety procedures to ensure that the SDZs are clear of all personnel during training, and that the public is notified when training is conducted. The Department of Defense's current regulations require that SDZs be calculated so that there is only a one-in-one-million chance that munitions or munitions fragments would land outside the secondary danger area.

77532

77533

77534

As you can see even common small arms require an SDZ of 3,000 to 4,000 meters .50 cal requires over 6,000 meters SDZ. That just what the .MIL considers "small."

Locally we have access to two military bases, technically three separate facilities all part of the same Joint base.

At one of these, we can only shoot pistol, shotgun and frangible 5.56 because some genius built base housing in the SDZ for regular rifle and MG ammo.

The other two are contiguous but are so full of old un exploded ordnance from WWII and Korea much of the training area is off limits. There is a 1,000 yard rifle range which was in use for years and is now limited to 100 yards because UXO was discovered buried in the range....

This second facility is also in the extended flight path of the local airport. No live fire may be conducted is any aircraft passing over head within view is under 3,000 feet. If there is cloud cover below 3,000 feet no live fire is permitted.


A good overview of SDZ can be found here: http://tacsafe.net/resources/range/introductionrangesafetysurfacedangerzones.pdf

[HCM]

Double Tap

[Duelist]

Oh god, imagine if the P85 somehow managed to win? I wonder how it would have held up through the years in service.

It probably would have done fine. Sure, I like the M9 more, and now mostly carry and shoot a Glock, but the Ruger would be just as easy to not shoot very much and not really know how to effectively use for most service people as the M9, M11, M17, or anything else.

[Stephanie B]

I can't speak for all military bases, but yeah I'm under the impression most of them are pretty much maxed out on training area availability.

Can't spend more time at the range if there's no available range to spend time at, no ammo to shoot, and no truly qualified personnel to teach instead of relying on T3-type instructors like we use now.

Everything seems to be cyclical. When the Navy went from "five offa the fantail" to qualifying on silhouettes (20/30 at 75', Bullseye firing speeds for both pistols and rifles), the base ranges were maxed out. So if there was a forest range available, they went there. Chiefs who were gun club members arranged for the use of club ranges, usually in exchange for a working party to paint/spruce up the range, or for a 20lb tin of ground coffee.

[TGS]

Everything seems to be cyclical. When the Navy went from "five offa the fantail" to qualifying on silhouettes (20/30 at 75', Bullseye firing speeds for both pistols and rifles), the base ranges were maxed out. So if there was a forest range available, they went there. Chiefs who were gun club members arranged for the use of club ranges, usually in exchange for a working party to paint/spruce up the range, or for a 20lb tin of ground coffee.

I wonder if this is a reason that, at least during the mid-2000s, there was a revival of the "5 off fantail" qualification as reported by my brother. Perhaps they did it out of necessity if there was no availability to get guys through an actual qualification course of fire?


What is the cause of this I wonder? Legacy locations of established bases that used to be more isolated, but are now surrounded by development? Or is it something else?

Short Answer: Bean counters.

Long Answer:

Base Realignment and Closure Act from the late 80s to mid-2000s closed 350 bases so they could concentrate troops at a smaller number of bases for purposes of efficiency. So now even if we've got less troops overall compared to the cold war, we've got more troops per training area than we ever did.

HCM brought up a good point with the SDZs, though. If you're running a range for a weapons system that requires a larger SDZ as opposed to smaller, that doesn't just mean that the range may take up more physical space as he has pointed out........it means you may actually shut down other ranges' operations as they're located within the SDZ/impact zone for your range when shooting XYZ weapon system (but not when shooting a smaller weapons system).

As an extreme example, shooting a TOW. A single TOW shot can virtually shut down operations on all training areas on some bases for a period of 30 minutes.....obviously longer if you're taking more shots. Or........shooting artillery. That can shut down a wide swath of a bases training areas in the direction of fire, meaning you can't shoot on what ranges might be impacted by the safety measures.

The military generally doesn't have indoor ranges in administrative or billeting areas (like, next to the PX or something) that you can go to shoot some pistols or rifles if the training areas out in the boondocks are unavailable. The closest they have to that are the big-screen simulators using CO2 guns......sort of like an oversized military version of the FATS used by police. However, those are pretty much exclusively run by contractors which means you need all sorts of pre-approval and scheduling to make it happen. It's not like you can just call them up and say, "Hey my M9 range day got cancelled because the armored scouts needed to shift right on their timeline and their TOWs are closing the only available pistol range we were slated for. Can I stop by with my platoon to get in some range time, even if it's just virtual?" Not realistic.

I used to work in operations on a base while I was in the USMC. The scheduling of training areas was jam packed down to the hour. Any change required another unit to be displaced about 90%+ of the time. Just to fulfill our baseline mandated training (not even "extra" stuff) we had to routinely outsource (rent) training areas from a nearby army reserve base which was just one big giant plot of woods filled with training areas, and even they were pretty busy. When my current federal LE agency needed to consolidate our training and as part of that needed a bomb range we could run whenever we wanted, literally no base within 4 hours was capable of accommodating us so we became tenants at a state national guard base about 5 hours away where we built our own training areas. Supposedly it was due to be closed if we hadn't moved in, which is ridiculous since it was still utilized routinely for training even without us. I have a buddy who is in the national guard 700 miles away and his unit even had to travel all the way there for general training (i.e. not any sort of program specific thing unique to the base like how Ft Dix ran a C-IED program).

Bean counters are the devil. They ruin military training and effectiveness. They ruin hospital staffing and ability to surge. They ruin police response times and efficacy. If anyone reading this is a "bean counter", you can go fucking die in a fire.

This is about the extent I can speak to the issue without getting out of my lane. rcbusmc24 for more.

[rcbusmc24]

Oh the joys of RFMSS, dealing with scheduling and conflicting priorities... along with getting co uses approved, coordinating air windows/ airspace and SUAS deconfliction, NOTAM's being posted, shutting down roads if we are shooting particular DODIC's.... We fired a Tomahawk last week in support of a large scale naval exercise into our G10 Multi use impact area, It shut down half the mainside training areas and airspace for it to happen.....

Then there is the commanders confirmation brief, ammo requests that have to be submitted 60 days out unless you want to get a 06 level waiver, ORM matrixes, and the logistical requirements.... Transpo requests, ammo lift requests, medical support, BOM requests and authorizations.... Getting the weapons LTI/PFI'ed prior to any live fire event to include blank's....

Fun times.....


FML.

[TGS]

Fun times.....


FML.

What do you have, two weeks left?

[rcbusmc24]

What do you have, two weeks left?

I pick up my retirement orders, DD214 and other assorted stuff at IPAC on monday morning, and depart on terminal leave. Tomorrow is the 20 year mark, actual retirement date is Oct 31. We didn't wrap up the last raid course until last Friday.

[Tabasco]

Doesn’t really sound like you got much more than I did. Was that Armor OBC or AIT? Had you not trained with your Dad’s 1911 do you think you would have shot expert?

It was the AIT portion of OSUT at Ft. Knox. Familiarity with the 1911 did help, but there were a couple of others who shot Expert, not sure of their previous experience.

[MandoWookie]

TGS, Jesus Christ, I knew there was bureaucracy and logistical concerns, but that is so convoluted and idiotic that I cannot comprehend it.
I thought the point of an all volunteer professional military was to improve these kind of things, not somehow manage to condense and exacerbate all the failings of a lowest common denominator draft force.

Is it a consequence of the last 20 years of persistent conflict, or was a lot of these issues also prevalent pre-GWOT?

[TGS]

TGS, Jesus Christ, I knew there was bureaucracy and logistical concerns, but that is so convoluted and idiotic that I cannot comprehend it.
I thought the point of an all volunteer professional military was to improve these kind of things, not somehow manage to condense and exacerbate all the failings of a lowest common denominator draft force.

Is it a consequence of the last 20 years of persistent conflict, or was a lot of these issues also prevalent pre-GWOT?

I can't honestly answer that question about pre-GWOT, and I think there's probably precious few here who can. That's a very specific time to transition, and the subject matter of training management isn't something the average bear will be able to speak intelligently about unless they were a SNCO or officer as the average grunt is just getting told to go here and go there; they don't have any exposure on the backend operations of training management.

Basically, everything is run on mission essential tasks. The 1st Mandowookie Regiment has to be proficient in a set of specific tasks, and everything is broken down by the numbers, barney style, on a flowchart of enabling and terminal objectives. In order for the 1st Mandowookie Regiment to be considered up to snuff as a combat unit, they have to be "certified" in their various mission essential tasks. This could include individual skills (weapons quals being just one of many) or unit skills (such as a company sized helo raid). The planning and reservation of training areas for their training cycle starts before most of the unit's personnel is even in place, and is measured in years. If the 1st Mandwookie Regiment is going on a deployment as part of a special purpose task force, such as being CENTCOMs SP-MAGTF-CR, then there's additional mission essential tasks they'll have to be certified on through other training packages, like the ones that rcbusmc24 has run for the last few years.

Thus, the allocation of training areas is based off of these mission essential tasks and statistically how much those training areas will be utilized. This is why special units will often be given their own areas for training...it's not because they're "cool guys", it's because their requirement of being at the cutting edge requires flexibility in training venue availability and utilization.

Note: that's for combat units where their job in between deployments is literally just to train. That doesn't even begin to touch support units (admin, MPs, intelligence, supply, etc) where their job is to actually do a job day-to-day, not train. You can't just pull your S1 shop to go to the range nilly willy for a reason that is extracurricular to your mission essential tasks. Bitches need their pay, and rcbusmc24 needs to EAS; you have 7 personnel in a shop task-organized for the work of 11. How's that range time going to work?

[Cory]

I pick up my retirement orders, DD214 and other assorted stuff at IPAC on monday morning, and depart on terminal leave. Tomorrow is the 20 year mark, actual retirement date is Oct 31. We didn't wrap up the last raid course until last Friday.

Congratulations.

[Stephanie B]

Bean counters are the devil. They ruin military training and effectiveness. They ruin hospital staffing and ability to surge. They ruin police response times and efficacy. If anyone reading this is a "bean counter", you can go fucking die in a crotch fire.rcbusmc24 for more.

Fixed it for you.

[Stephanie B]

I pick up my retirement orders, DD214 and other assorted stuff at IPAC on monday morning, and depart on terminal leave. Tomorrow is the 20 year mark, actual retirement date is Oct 31. We didn't wrap up the last raid course until last Friday.

Mazel tov!

[03RN]

I pick up my retirement orders, DD214 and other assorted stuff at IPAC on monday morning, and depart on terminal leave. Tomorrow is the 20 year mark, actual retirement date is Oct 31. We didn't wrap up the last raid course until last Friday.

Enjoy the down time [beer]

[CWM11B]

I pick up my retirement orders, DD214 and other assorted stuff at IPAC on monday morning, and depart on terminal leave. Tomorrow is the 20 year mark, actual retirement date is Oct 31. We didn't wrap up the last raid course until last Friday.

Congratulations, Bravo Zulu, Fair Winds and Folliwing Seas. With a genuine thank you for your service.

[TOTS]

I pick up my retirement orders, DD214 and other assorted stuff at IPAC on monday morning, and depart on terminal leave. Tomorrow is the 20 year mark, actual retirement date is Oct 31. We didn't wrap up the last raid course until last Friday.

Ha! You think you’ll pick up your DD214! In actuality, you’ll screen it and mark everything the IPAC Seps clerk got wrong or forgot (i.e. missing awards, etc) and then they will tell you you have to come back after your actual EAS date. You’ll hit the roof but can’t do anything about it. Hopefully I’m wrong and it’s different for actual retirement.

Kidding aside, congrats brother! I stayed in the reserves instead of retiring but my 20 year letter is secure in the safe!

ETA: Fuck RFMSS. Also, to add to TGS wonderful insights to training barriers (1000% correct btw) I can only speak to the pre-GWOT years from 97-the kickoff, but We (usually) only used one or two of the three parallel rifle ranges when we were qualifying units and only one pistol range at a time. I was a block official at the Pulgas range on Pendleton. I don’t know if it was slower back then or less requirements; things DID seem simpler and slower back then. Big problem PGWOT was no money. We alternated months buying printer paper and toilet paper.

[HCM]

I pick up my retirement orders, DD214 and other assorted stuff at IPAC on monday morning, and depart on terminal leave. Tomorrow is the 20 year mark, actual retirement date is Oct 31. We didn't wrap up the last raid course until last Friday.

Congratulations !

[TOTS]

I realize I’m not the one you are asking, but…

My “official” Army introduction to the M9 was at Armor Officer Basic Course which consisted of a morning of how to maintain it and an afternoon that consisted of some Fam fire with coaching and then qualification. As @Cory stated, this what a case of the “one eyed leading the blind.” Fortunately for me - I had been shooting somewhat seriously for several years and was able to clear the course and gain a little cred with my classmates.

”

That’s similar to the pistol experience the entire USMC Aviation gets. A newly promoted SNCO gets about 15 minutes of one-on-one fam training with the M9, then 10 rnds of pre-qual, then 40 for score. That’s their annual qualification! Training and range coaching is provided by E4-E6 (often an admin or maintenance Marine) from that unit with the only qualification that they had scored Expert on the rifle range prior to going to the Marksmanship Training Unit for a PowerPoint class on how to be a pistol range coach.

[JRB]

Congratulations on your retirement, rcbusmc24! Well deserved and I'm glad you are in a position to retire. Not all who make it to their 20 are so lucky. Enjoy it!



Ha! You think you’ll pick up your DD214! In actuality, you’ll screen it and mark everything the IPAC Seps clerk got wrong or forgot (i.e. missing awards, etc) and then they will tell you you have to come back after your actual EAS date. You’ll hit the roof but can’t do anything about it. Hopefully I’m wrong and it’s different for actual retirement.

Kidding aside, congrats brother! I stayed in the reserves instead of retiring but my 20 year letter is secure in the safe!

ETA: Fuck RFMSS. Also, to add to TGS wonderful insights to training barriers (1000% correct btw) I can only speak to the pre-GWOT years from 97-the kickoff, but We (usually) only used one or two of the three parallel rifle ranges when we were qualifying units and only one pistol range at a time. I was a block official at the Pulgas range on Pendleton. I don’t know if it was slower back then or less requirements; things DID seem simpler and slower back then. Big problem PGWOT was no money. We alternated months buying printer paper and toilet paper.

The pro tip for getting your DD-214 perfect the first time; Bring your 'I love me' book with printed copies of all of your awards and deployment orders etc you want reflected on your DD-214. The clerks there are able to make on the spot corrections 90%+ of the time* so long as you've got absolute proof you 'did the thing'. They obviously just can't make any edits on your word alone, and they don't always have time or the ability to pull up your records, iPerms, whatever.

Also, ask for as many original copies of the Member-4 and Service-2 as they're willing to give you.


*(Gov systems being what they are, accesses being a constant problem, middle field grade officers cursed with good idea fairies, etc)

[TOTS]

Great gouge right there

[awp_101]

Bean counters are the devil. They ruin military training and effectiveness. They ruin hospital staffing and ability to surge. They ruin police response times and efficacy. If anyone reading this is a "bean counter", you can go fucking die in a fire.

77674

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

Looks like these have finally landed, I'm very tempted but can't help but wonder what a good price would be for this given the MSRP of $1100 and seems everybody is asking around $1000. I remember when you could find M9A3's around $800 or better. Think I may just wait a bit but knowing Beretta I'd hate to miss out if they don't run these very long. Thoughts?

[Chuck Whitlock]

I pick up my retirement orders, DD214 and other assorted stuff at IPAC on monday morning, and depart on terminal leave. Tomorrow is the 20 year mark, actual retirement date is Oct 31. We didn't wrap up the last raid course until last Friday.

Outstanding! Congratulations!




The pro tip for getting your DD-214 perfect the first time; Bring your 'I love me' book with printed copies of all of your awards and deployment orders etc you want reflected on your DD-214. The clerks there are able to make on the spot corrections 90%+ of the time* so long as you've got absolute proof you 'did the thing'. They obviously just can't make any edits on your word alone, and they don't always have time or the ability to pull up your records, iPerms, whatever.

Also, ask for as many original copies of the Member-4 and Service-2 as they're willing to give you.


*(Gov systems being what they are, accesses being a constant problem, middle field grade officers cursed with good idea fairies, etc)

Another pro-tip": Wherever you live, whenever you move, take them to the county courthouse and have them filed with the county clerk or records office. You will then be able to get certified copies for free whenever you need them.

[Archer1440]

Another element of the US military makes the transition:

https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2021-10-01/us-navy-sig-sauer-m18-beretta-m9-yokosuka-japan-3086402.html?fbclid=IwAR0Mh9kqj4vKWQKFX6QRLIkDa4BG TFNqsOyJR4fXDxfy9GMPNVdgZthFb14#.YVrwpnWkYWg.faceb ook

[HCountyGuy]

Got to mess with an M9A4 today. It has a really stagey trigger towards the end of the DA pull, but other than that about what you’d expect from a 92 series.

[Evil_Ed]

Looks like these have finally landed, I'm very tempted but can't help but wonder what a good price would be for this given the MSRP of $1100 and seems everybody is asking around $1000. I remember when you could find M9A3's around $800 or better. Think I may just wait a bit but knowing Beretta I'd hate to miss out if they don't run these very long. Thoughts?

My mainly frequented store has a M9A4-G in stock (tan), I believe the asking price was $915...they got it in sometime last week, as it wasn't there when I stopped in last Tuesday but it was there this morning. YMMV but I'd expect in the 8s before too long.

Seriously tempted by it, but I already have a 92A1 and a Wilson Brigtac...

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

My mainly frequented store has a M9A4-G in stock (tan), I believe the asking price was $915...they got it in sometime last week, as it wasn't there when I stopped in last Tuesday but it was there this morning. YMMV but I'd expect in the 8s before too long.

Seriously tempted by it, but I already have a 92A1 and a Wilson Brigtac...

If it makes that sort of drop soon I might have to grab one to wear in a Mitch Rosen Should Rig at home, that would be killer cool.

I really like the way these turned out, checks all the boxes for me. Still might need to handle one to be sure, my hands are medium but I have short fingers that make things difficult often to reach trigger well enough.