beretta combat reliability? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : beretta combat reliability?


dberry
03-23-2006, 07:48
Did your Beretta M9 ever choke in combat?This is mainly meant for those who have been deployed to places like Iraq,Afghan and Bosnia.
I hear alot of internet trashtalk and I figure you can shead some light on this sugject.Please share all stories,testimonies and experience of your beretta.:)

Cav
03-23-2006, 11:36
IMHO its based on the user.

If you are a lazy soldier who cares more about your living area, the internet, video games, movies, or other non combat things that your weapon might not serve you well from what I saw. This is for all weapons.

I was in a combat arms Unit that did daily patrols. We cleaned our weapons and did basic maint daily. We also used Beretta magazines, and new ammo every month. Once a week we cleaned our mags and ammo (the ammo will need a wipe down as it gets dirty and wares in the magazine if driving around or running alot). We replaced or mag springs with Wolff after about 6 months. We tset fired our weapons from time to time also.

Most non combat arms units I saw did none of that, and never thought they would need to use there weapons. The sad thing is there base security was there self. IMHO most soldiers who had problems with weapons were people who stayed in a base camp and never left, let alone had a real fire fight.

Biscuitsjam
03-23-2006, 12:23
We're a combat arms unit (tanks) that was deployed with the Beretta. We were NOT issued Beretta-brand magazines. I never had any problems with the operation of the pistol itself, but the off-brand magazines were another story entirely. They lock up after just a few days with only a minute amount of dust in them. The follower gets stuck, which usually means that only the first one or two rounds will feed before the weapon jams.

We never received new springs, but extra magazines were available.

Waiting a whole month between cleaning pistol magazines = disaster with non-Beretta-brand magazines. It won't work unless you clean them every day, and sometimes not even then. With so many other weapons per person (I had 4 at my disposal), the Beretta was often neglected.

Biscuitsjam
03-23-2006, 21:31
I was responsible for cleaning and loading the main gun.
I had an M240 machinegun on the loader's hatch, which was my primary weapon.
I had a spare M240 in the sponson box in case the first malfunctioned.
I also had an M4, which I kept within easy reach at all times.
And, I kept plenty of grenades at hand, along with more spare barrels for the M240s, thousands of rounds of ammo, and so on.
The M9 was pretty much ignored.

Consider also that tanks are one of the most maintenance-intensive items in the U.S. army, so spare time wasn't exactly plentiful. I wiped down the pistol about once a week and detail cleaned it about once a month. Even when freshly cleaned, though, I wouldn't stake my life on it. For close quarters, I'd rather have a knife in my hand. For anything further away, I'd take cover if I didn't have another weapon available.

Highly reliable, even during sandstorms or uncleaned were the M4, M16, SAW, M240, 120mm, and most others. The .50 cal and MK19 required a bit more maintenance, but they weren't hard to keep online either. The Beretta, even when regularly cleaned, could only guarantee 1-2 shots before jamming with the magazines we were issued.

nothing
03-23-2006, 23:15
Infantry unit doing daily patrols. Never had any issues with my M9 or M4.

BRAVHART
03-24-2006, 04:29
Never choked because I left the POS back at the camp and carried a glock 19. I wouldnt trust my life such a crappy overrated god know why some stupid officer picked this gun M9.

Just my humble option. I was driver.

fxdwngflyr
03-26-2006, 18:03
Keep it clean, as clean as you can. It is not a Glock.

AK_Stick
03-26-2006, 19:52
I love mine, I clean the gun every two weeks, and the mags whenever I cant thumb a few rounds out with the next one snapping into place with authority. I have three mags I rotate thru wich I'm carrying and leave the others on my armor.

Never had a problem yet.

{TEX}Hawaii 5-0
03-29-2006, 18:46
Never had a problem in Iraq due to strict maintenance regimin. We also used Berretta issued mags (thicker base plate)instead of the Army issued ones and replaced our springs with Wolfe Springs.

....But the M9 failed miserably in Australia '03 pistol and rifle shooting comp. We broke 11 of 13 of our M9s. Most of the faults came from the safety shearing completely off the pistol while shooting in the competition. I'll be glad when we change.

BuckyP
03-30-2006, 08:33
Was it the right (ambi) side of the safety that came off?

{TEX}Hawaii 5-0
03-30-2006, 19:12
It was both the left and the right side. The pin connecting both sides broke.

45BOY
04-16-2006, 08:25
The only time I have had a seriuos problem was after calling in a medevac and being on the aid & litter team my m9 got completely filled with sand between slide, barrel, and frame. I carry mine in a safariland 6004 which leaves the top open except for the roto piece. I was issued checkmate mags but brought a few factory mags with me. I clean it everyday after we get back in the wire. At least once a week I unload my mags, m9 and m4 to release the tension on the springs along with cleaning them.

I am not a big beretta fan, have 2 92fs back stateside but prefer a glock 17 every day of the week if talking a full size 9mm. I will say that I have qualled expert with it and it does its part if I do mine as far as shooting and maintenance.

RmeAv8tor
04-17-2006, 12:00
Originally posted by BRAVHART
...a crappy overrated god know why some stupid officer picked this gun M9...
Actually the majority of the testers were NCOs of all the services.

DMark
:patriot:

Biscuitsjam
04-19-2006, 07:21
NCOs may have done the testing, but who made the final decision?


It's not a bad pistol, just so long as you use the proper magazine. Whoever decided to give Checkmate the magazine contract should have disciplinary action taken against him.

RmeAv8tor
04-19-2006, 08:37
Originally posted by Biscuitsjam
...Whoever decided to give Checkmate the magazine contract should have disciplinary action taken against him.
AGREE!!!! :thumbsup:

DMark
:patriot:

BRAVHART
04-19-2006, 14:10
Originally posted by RmeAv8tor
Actually the majority of the testers were NCOs of all the services.

DMark
:patriot:

Theres always a few kiss asses in the bunch. Obiviously hand picked by the officers.

:)

USDefender
04-25-2006, 09:34
Originally posted by BRAVHART
Never choked because I left the POS back at the camp and carried a glock 19. I wouldnt trust my life such a crappy overrated god know why some stupid officer picked this gun M9.

Just my humble option. I was driver.


Good thinking. I would've done the same thing, even if it meant carrying the M9 in the holster & carrying the Glock concealed. (Yes, I've thought about it. I was worried about my brother, a US Marine squad leader doing 'hard time' in Ramadi who was issued the Beretta. He just left the thing 'at home' in favor of more M-16 ammo.)

Biscuitsjam
04-27-2006, 11:00
even if it meant carrying the M9 in the holster & carrying the Glock concealedI wouldn't recommend it. You're probably smarter than this guy, BUT....

We had an officer smuggle an unapproved .45 pistol into Iraq. At the base, he'd carry his M9 in his holster and the 45 in his pocket. Outside the wire, he'd swap them. Well, one time while swapping, he accidentally pulled the trigger on the 45 and blew a big chunk out of his leg. He then threw the pistol into a canal and reported that he was hit with "sniper fire" while inside the turret of his tank.

When he got back to base, he told the medics again that it was sniper fire that hit him before he broke down crying and confessed the truth to the colonel.

He spent a month in the hospital plus he's still doing physical therapy. Plus, he's facing disciplinary action (for bringing an unapproved weapon and then lying about it). Kind of karma actually, since the idiot accidentally shot an Iraqi civilian in the leg with his M4 a few weeks before, as well as other stupid things, like blowing up a random house because of a phantom "rpg" (that nobody else heard, across the street from the FOB).


Edit: Sorry for posting off-topic, but I couldn't resist. You can go back to your regularly-scheduled programming now.

Jeff82
05-02-2006, 10:14
Ditto to what's above.

Brought three OEM mags to supplant the issue Checkmate ones. All choke on dust and this can happen quickly, within 24 hrs (which means it doesn't take much, not that conditions are that bad). OEM not as soon as Checkmate. When hand emptying mags I find the ammo sticks down in the mag and won't feed up. Strangely enough, the gun has never failed to fire on the range. Maybe the firing "forces" shake it around enough to keep it feeding? I don't know but it's not confidence inspiring. I'd much rather have my Glock!!

Haven't fired it in the "heat" of battle. So far my only "hot" shooting has been with my M2! (and I like it that way!)
:50cal:

ronin67
05-07-2006, 07:43
Originally posted by Biscuitsjam
NCOs may have done the testing, but who made the final decision?


It's not a bad pistol, just so long as you use the proper magazine. Whoever decided to give Checkmate the magazine contract should have disciplinary action taken against him.


You got that right. The Army should have spent the extra money for the quality Beretta magazines. I'm a retired MP and I can say the after market magazines are total crap. The M9 itself isn't that bad a pistol, with the right magazine. The 9mm round is another issue all together. Why the U.S. Army decided to switch from 45 ACP to 9mm is beyond me. I still ponder that decision to this day.

Take Care and God Bless,

Ed

Harv
05-07-2006, 18:30
Heres my $.02 from a guy who carried an issue one with Uncle Sugar and owned my own . Most of the bad rap is from the Checkmate mag Fiasco and the tough guys who think .45 is the ultimate one shot stopper.
The M9 went thru some of the most stringent and toughest field tests a modern pistol had ever been subjected to. And it came out on top from all the other entries.

Here's a news flash most guys don't want to hear. Most guys who are issued one Suck with it. Most shooters in general suck shooting a pistol. The Military does not stress the pistol in training nor do they support in in STRAC allocations. Qualification is a joke and the Military still teaches some of the more absurd shooting positions and does not teach any of the accepted Malfunction drills that are in most modern gun-fighting POI's.

So Joe gets about 100 rds a year if he's lucky.

Now compound that with a batch of Mags that were parkerized inside and out and had a rough finish. This prevented the rounds from rolling inside the mag as they follower pushed up on them and the fine Talcum sand did nothing to help this. end result, major stoppages and malfunctions happening to Soldiers with limited training and skill to properly deal with the problem. That and a little internet myth mixed in and Viola... you have a unearned bad reputation.

With 9MM like any pistol it's all about shot placement. There is no "Magic" Bullet that will hit a guy in the leg and drop him dead...... You Plant one between the eyes and two in the chest and he will never know if it was a 9MM or a .45 that killed him.

I ran a lot of Pistol ranges over my career and trained alot of guys to shoot a pistol. trust me when I say the average shooter is not that great with a pistol. And the Military is fine with that (I disagree) because the pistol has always been regarded as a last ditch weapon.

Now if you stress Pistols like they do in SOCOM, you get much better results. They do pistol work-ups that go thru more rounds in a week then an average Joe will shoot in a 20 year career.


I started my career with the M1911A1 and it's amazing how everyone who used to shoot them said the same thing about how they had one that rattled and they could not hit jack with it.

A new Pistol in any caliber will not make Shooters better, more and better training and more rds downrange will. That's a fact. The M9 is just fine as long as you stick with the OEM mags and you do your part........

Just my uneducated $.02

matsig
05-08-2006, 15:53
Should I venture to guess that this officer was a National Guardsman from in the area of Hinesville GA?

Jeff82
05-09-2006, 02:02
Originally posted by Harv
Heres my $.02 from a guy who carried an issue one with Uncle Sugar and owned my own . Most of the bad rap is from the Checkmate mag Fiasco and the tough guys who think .45 is the ultimate one shot stopper.
The M9 went thru some of the most stringent and toughest field tests a modern pistol had ever been subjected to. And it came out on top from all the other entries.

...

A new Pistol in any caliber will not make Shooters better, more and better training and more rds downrange will. That's a fact. The M9 is just fine as long as you stick with the OEM mags and you do your part........

Just my uneducated $.02

Don't take this as "sniping" at you...

Are you talking about that "fine" pistol that for the first several years of it's adoption had continual slide and receiver fractures? You know, the one that the army had to institute a 1000 round per barrel limit before the barrel must be replaced? Then add the mag problems on top of that. So the pistol that passed all the tests (other candidates legitimately failed and some failed due to some strange and/or ludicrous "requirements") is somehow the "best"? I think not. And, in my experience which is ongoing as I type this, using blued OEM mags only gives you a bit more time before they exhibit the same problem as the "parkerized inside and out" Checkmate mags.

IMO, the M-9 started as piece of garbage, has been improved slightly by fixing problems it never should have had, but still has inherent issues that should not be tolerated in a combat pistol, ie., feeding problems (us. mag related), and lethality problems (9mm Ball, need I say more about that?) that we fighting forces shouldn't have to deal with. Training can overcome some of this but, unless you are allowed to restructure the entire army's training plans, you will never be allowed to do it, therefore, at present, is a moot issue. What we need is something that will work given the parameters we find in reality.

A more lethal cartridge in a "easier" weapon to shoot accurately. A review of training records will show that this can be accomplished by switching to a Glock pistol in .40 or .45 caliber. Due to restrictions to Ball ammo I'd limit the choice to .45. When limited to Ball, "bigger is better."

BTW, I've been around the military for over 20 years. The only complaint I've heard about the old M1911A1 is that some people couldn't hit with it and I'm pretty sure they couldn't hit with any other pistol either. Soldiers had faith in that old gun (maybe too much!) as opposed to most despising the current one, I feel, for good reason.

2 more .01 dollar.

I :patriot: your service, sir.

Harv
05-12-2006, 18:00
Early problems

Beretta now had two major contracts, about 500,000 units for the US Armed forces and around 230,000 units for the French armed forces. This with both clients wanting to receive their pistols as specified in the contracts. In the case of the Beretta 92G, the French would supply the slide steel to Italy, until GIAT would start licensed production. Somehow, at some point in time, Beretta decided to use 5,000 semi finished slides intended for the French to build pistols for the their US customer, this in order to meet deadlines. Not much later after the US Armed forces had accepted these pistols, a few slides of Beretta 92Fs (less than 10 total) and some older Beretta 92SBs started to crack and fly off. An investigation would later identify the lot that had been made with metallurgically inferior French steel slides as well as US manufactured 9 mm Luger ammunition that was extremely overpressured and not within specifications. Both parties were placing blame on each other without fully admitting their oversight. It was also discovered that the locking block required a design change to increase its service life. Military then has decided to exchange locking blocks after 5000 rounds giving a bad reputation to Beretta on the civilian market as a gun with a short life span. When a new version of a locking block appeared, it was a success. The locking block now is rated for 25,000 rounds, minimum. Yet, something had to be done to reduce the risk for the user of being struck by the rear half of the slide. The solution was the addition of a slide retention device in form of an enlarged hammer axis pin, the result was the Beretta 92FS. Since then, near all modern Beretta pistols are fitted with such a simple means of user protection. During this time, there were some tests being done with a closed slide (slide that lacks a cut which exposes a barrel), this did however somewhat reduce the reliability of the pistol. Beretta eventually designed a new slide, one that contained more steel in the area prone to breakage, basically, thickening the slide walls. Later this slide became known as the Brigadier type slide. And, although the causes of the initial slide breakages had already been remedied, the Brigadier is currently offered to consumers as a variant in addition to the original design. (Those who shop for a 96FS have every reason to purchase Brigadier model since .40S&W is a more pressurized round.) The Brigadier slide also offers an ability to adjust or replace front sights in the dove-tail groove. Previously, on non-Brigadier slide, it was impossible because the front sight was a part of the slide and prevented any manipulation. The Brigadier slide also makes a gun a few ounces heavier, some say it helps to reduce recoil for follow up shots.
Another weakness that was corrected has been a trigger spring. This spring is responsible for resetting a trigger to its original position after each trigger pull. Unfortunately, at times, the spring's leg would snap leaving a person with half functioning handgun; especially frightening if it would occur during a firefight or where no replacement spring is available. One would need use another hand to depress a trigger, losing accuracy and fire rate dramatically. To help the situation, Beretta since then uses a bit different spring where each leg is similar and, thus, allows to invert the spring till a new replacement can be obtained. Yet, such a solution is not 100% proof. Best practice still is to regularly change the trigger spring.


Jeff

This must be what your referring to. Again, the fact's normally settle most internet Hype.

Sure the Pistol had early problems, what system does not (M16 Hint..Hint),

I won't debate the .45 vs 9mm as both caliber's have been killing bad guys for close to 100 years. No death ray and no magic bullet.

Bottom line is it's a weapon that is more then up to the task in the hands of a skilled user, I won't debate the lack of training as I will agree it sucks. But no matter what pistol you put in the hand's of an in experienced 19yr old Joe with 100 rds under his belt, and your gonna hear stories about how it sucks and it should be replaced.

Not everyone in the Military is a small arms expert. Most of the Soldiers issued a Pistol have less pistol training and skill then an Avid civillian shooter who shoots one 100 rd IDPA match per month.......!

And that Civy gets more practice and better practice under more realistic conditions then that Soldier does in a 12 month training Calendar.

To Answer the original poster.. yes the M-9 with proper Factory mags and good ammo is adequate for the task.

Don't forget their are still shooters repeating the M16 myths from VietNam that people still swear by as the Gospel.

Jammer Six
05-12-2006, 18:37
But no matter what pistol you put in the hand's of an in experienced 19yr old Joe with 100 rds under his belt, and your gonna hear stories about how it sucks and it should be replaced.
The only moral problem with that position is that the army is made up of 19 year old problems who are lucky to get 100 rounds under their belts.

Weapons systems need to be designed and implemented with exactly that in mind.

The object is not for only the expert soldiers to come home, the object is a survivable, lethal weapons system that can be employed by an "inexpereinced, 19 yr old joe with 100 rds under his belt."

Harv
05-15-2006, 20:32
The object is not for only the expert soldiers to come home, the object is a survivable, lethal weapons system that can be employed by an "inexpereinced, 19 yr old joe with 100 rds under his belt."

That's a nice sentiment but the real Army I served in was a little bit different.

The goal should not be to give everyone an idiot proof weapon that you don't have to aim or Hit anything with (Look Up Project SALVO) But to give our Guys Tough realistic hands on training with an emphasis on small arms marksmanship and the Fundamentals.

Anyone remember the Pvt Lych Fiasco??? So name a Pistol that would have made that outcome different. As I have often heard, it's the Singer, Not the song. No amount of smalls arms technology can compensate for it.

Hard and realistic training with an Emphasis on Shooting, (compare the cost of one F-22 to a yearly Small arms ammo budget) is the Key.

Handguns are difficult to shoot. Period. To overcome that you shoot and practice, then shoot some more. No easier way, no short cut, no new pistol will change that.

I watched just as many guys suck with a 1911A1 as I did with an M9.
Why? Cause shooting pistols is hard. And the Army does not spend the time and money to train you to a higher level.

Marksmenship scores in the Army Increased with the M9. Say what you want but a Hit with a 9MM is always going to be better then a Miss with a .45....

Jammer Six
05-15-2006, 22:36
The goal should not be to give everyone an idiot proof weapon that you don't have to aim or Hit anything with (Look Up Project SALVO) But to give our Guys Tough realistic hands on training with an emphasis on small arms marksmanship and the Fundamentals.
You mean like the Code of Bushido?

This nation used technology to take those inexperienced, green children you are so contemptuous of, and eat the Samaurai class alive.

It wasn't small arms marksmanship or realistic, hands on training.

Nothing prepares you for combat. Nothing.

Jeff82
05-16-2006, 02:11
I've been out of the 'net for a coupla days so I'm just catching up. Harv, thanks for proving my point in excrutiating detail earlier.

More comments:

Originally posted by Harv
Anyone remember the Pvt Lych Fiasco??? So name a Pistol that would have made that outcome different.
...
And the Army does not spend the time and money to train you to a higher level.
...
Marksmenship scores in the Army Increased with the M9. Say what you want but a Hit with a 9MM is always going to be better then a Miss with a .45....

PVT Lynch couldn't/didn't use her M16 let alone a pistol if she would've had one. Don't know that the prsence of pistols would have changed anything with the exception of giving the bad guys even more weapons.

They never have and probably never will spend what they should in handgun training. Not the masses anyway.

And the scores would go up even more if they went to Glocks, so apparently "effectivness" isn't part of the equation... (By the way, I'll not read this last statement as a sexist statement, as the capitalized "M" would suggest!! :-) )

Harv
05-16-2006, 15:17
Originally from Jammer Six
You mean like the Code of Bushido?

This nation used technology to take those inexperienced, green children you are so contemptuous of, and eat the Samaurai class alive.

It wasn't small arms marksmanship or realistic, hands on training.

Nothing prepares you for combat. Nothing.

You need to Back up with the "contemptuos" comment.

I dedicated 21 years training Soldiers for Combat and have more Rds down range then most here on the 1911 and M9 Platform, so I'm not talking out of my Ass or parroting what I read off the Internet.......

You think technology is going to win all our future wars so we don't need to have a professionally trained Army . You might want to review the Operation into Fallugha (Spelling?). That was not technology but tough gritty House to House war-fighting by Soldiers trained in CQB Tactics.

Based on your response The members of SOCOM and their Highly trained level of Skill is nothing compared to your green In experienced troops who don't need to be highly trained as long as they have expensive high tech idiot proof weapons to rely on. !!!!

Please feel free to elaborate on your experience with the M9 pistol??
I would very much like to hear it!!!!

RmeAv8tor
05-17-2006, 18:11
...I --- have more Rds down range then most here on the 1911 and M9 Platform,
Don't include me in the statement above. It does not apply to me.

HOWEVER, I agree that only hits count and even then only well placed ones no matter the size of the round.

I also agree that the Army as a whole doesn't put forward the effort it should in regard to sidearm training.

DMark
:patriot:

DriBak
06-02-2006, 21:02
I was an M60 gunner during Desert Storm/ Desert Shield when I humped the M60 I also carried the M9, never had a problem with it (FMJ)

JohnNC
06-28-2006, 05:44
To answer the original question, the M9 is a good, reliable handgun. Like all pistols, it has its strengths and weaknesses. You can feel confident taking it to war.

Some issues:
1. Magazines. I recommend the Beretta ones (thick baseplate) or aftermarket Mec-Gars. The Checkmates have issues.
2. Clean it. It is not a Glock, it is a bit more sensitive to filth.
3. Most importantly, CHECK THE LOCKING BLOCK. If it shows wear, replace it (Army cost is like 3 bucks). A known weakness with the Beretta is that after many thousands of rounds, the ears on the sides of the locking block may break off. If this happens, you are out of the gunfight until the locking block is replaced.

Like I side, it only happens after many thousands of rounds, but it does happen. In a regular Army unit a pistol does not see this much ammo through it and isnīt usually a problem. I am an SF guy, we routinely put a couple thousand rounds a year through our Berettas and I have personally had three locking blocks break, and seen at least two dozen others. Keep in mind, though, that all these guns had probably 10,000 rounds or more through them. If you are in an Infantry unit, your whole Battalion probably wonīt fire a thousand 9mm rounds in a year.

Take care of the above, and youīll be just fine. No, itīs probably not our favorite gun, but it gets the job done. Be safe out there.

RmeAv8tor
06-28-2006, 09:00
Originally posted by JohnNC
....I am an SF guy, we routinely put a couple thousand rounds a year through our Berettas....If you are in an Infantry unit, your whole Battalion probably wonīt fire a thousand 9mm rounds in a year...
:highfive:

JohnNC, your quote sums up the entire problem. Until the Army figures out that hits with sidearms will only come with practice, practice, practice.... it won't matter what caliber or pistol we shoot.

Once during a QTB I presented a slide to the 101st CG that showed that in a year, I and my two teenage kids would fire more pistol ammo during IDPA matches than my battalion was allowed via STRAC.

He was shocked. With his SF background he didn't realize that 9mm for training was so poorly filled.

DMark
:patriot:

JohnNC
06-28-2006, 10:10
When I was in the Infantry I remember the STRAC manual allotted 500 rounds of 9mm for the year. This was a light infantry battalion, and as far as MTOE all the 81mm and 60mm mortar gunners carried M9s, as well as part of the Battalion staff.

JohnNC
06-28-2006, 10:15
Originally posted by Jammer Six
Nothing prepares you for combat. Nothing.

I mean no disrespect, but I canīt agree with that. Training makes a huge difference, in my opinion. In those first few second when you are scared out of your mind, they only thing you have to rely on is what is drilled in your head through training. Take cover, return fire, and communicate. That buys you precious seconds to get your bearings and start thinking, and then you can fight your way through.

Just my opinion.

Mr. Ajax
07-03-2006, 12:27
I took pat goodales PFT pistol course last week, and learned a great deal as I believe I will be issued an m9 if deployed (just enlisted 91w, medic)

I switched between my taurus 24/7 .40 and glock 23 during the course (I prefer the taurus, just slightly though) and at the end of the day when I was shooting realllll good I borrowed one of my buddies berreta 96fs (same pistol as the m9, just .40 cal instead) and I didnt care for it a bit. I would be happy to swap that m9 for a g17 in a heart beat.


edit: and the comment that "nothing prepares you for combat, nothing" ... I'd tend to disagree, but then again I dont know what you've been through. I've had training with epinephrine, and I imagine that's helped, and at PFT they beat you with a 2x4 while screaming at you and shooting rounds into the air during the tactical course. gets your blood up. I wouldnt say that I'm "prepared" for combat, but I know with %100 certainty that I'm better prepared now that I've been through it.

jmshady
07-03-2006, 16:03
Originally posted by Mr. Ajax
I took pat goodales PFT pistol course last week, and learned a great deal as I believe I will be issued an m9 if deployed (just enlisted 91w, medic)

edit: and the comment that "nothing prepares you for combat, nothing" ... I'd tend to disagree, but then again I dont know what you've been through. I've had training with epinephrine, and I imagine that's helped, and at PFT they beat you with a 2x4 while screaming at you and shooting rounds into the air during the tactical course. gets your blood up. I wouldnt say that I'm "prepared" for combat, but I know with %100 certainty that I'm better prepared now that I've been through it.

First off I had an M16 and an M9 while deployed to Iraq as a medic. They both are decent weapons. The only thing with the M9 is you have to clean and clean and clean some more if you want it to function correctly. Also +1 on the Beretta mags..

As for as your edited comment and after reading through the post.

PT, Marksmanship Training, Field problems, etc...

There is training to equip you for combat but nothing to compare to combat. Please do not mistake bullets "shooting in the air" as bullets shooting at your ass. There is a huge difference. If it was the same why not shoot at the class during training? So you can be equiped for combat with all the tools and alot of knowledge but if you are prepared or not will come to light when the SHTF. Just my.02.

Trent0341
07-03-2006, 17:36
I haven't put near as many rounds as some of you thru the M9. That being said here is my experience with it.

I haven't seen a misfire in combat. I've only actually seen it used twice in combat. 15 rounds fired the first time, 8 the second (Anyone else have to fill out ammo expenditure reports?). I would be willing to bet that if you pulled those magazines out right before fired at least one of them would have had rounds that didn't come up after the first or second round was expended. I think that the firing "knocks" them loose, but couldn't prove it. I have seen the magazine problem with both beretta and after-market magazines although the beretta mags seem to do better.

I think the military would be better served with the glock 17 or 22. I am partial to the glock so this is some what biased. It is a simpler weapon. I believe the military is hesitant to go to a pistol without a manual safety and from watching some of these privates (and lieutenants) running around I understand this.

I have to agree with the gentleman that said nothing prepares you for combat 100%. Training helps get you ready but you're not ever truly prepared in my opinion. Every engagement is different. You get to a point where you can handle it a lot better though.

Last but not least I really think the pistol isn't worth much as a weapon in combat except as an absolute last resort. I remember specifically thinking that I was glad I didn't have to use a pistol after one engagement. Everyone (myself included when I was younger) seems to think that pistols are "cool" and wants one in the military. After actually being in combat I really think I would rather never have to use one.