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

[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.