The rampant Dunning-Kruger effect that too many service members tend to develop on weapons handling is foremost.
If a policy says no-safety carry is OK, I expect them to be using it as a hammer when chambered, off-safe, and holding it by the barrel.
In between that, it'll be used as a loaded doorstop, latrine fishing lure, paperweight, etc. A hammer-down DA Beretta makes all of these situations substantially safer than a weapon with stored ignition energy that's already had a drop-safety problem.
I'd feel comfortable issuing G Berettas to a military. I am NOT comfortable with a no-safety P320.
At least, unless we make a military-wide mandatory course developed by P-F sorts that require at least a full week of proper pistol instruction and at least 500 rounds of shooting. Make strict standards on pass/fail and failures will never be allowed to be issued a handgun, ever.
Then make literally everyone in uniform go through that course - from new 11B Soldiers in OSUT at Benning to the most Fobbity Fobbits about to retire, everyone.
At which point, I figure we can talk about issuing pistols with stored ignition energy and carrying them off-safe.
That should cost only slightly less than the F35 program, I figure.