Frankly I was kind of surprised by all those who came to the defense of the M16--it perhaps taught me not to believe everything I hear and not to discount something until I've tried it. I still think the 5.56x45 is a poodle shooter and maintain it is perhaps the winklink in the M16 series, esp with ball ammo.
But then, what do you guys with experience think of the Beretta M9 as compared to other designs, such as the Colt, SIG, and H&K?
And how effective is the 9mm ball ammo as compared to the 45 ball rounds?

I carried and qualified with both the M9 and M1911A1 while in service. More M9s shoot tight groups than the M1911A1s. More M1911A1s shoot to point of aim (ie. are sighted correctly).

For stopping power, I think I'd prefer a M9 to a bayonet or rock and a M1911A1 to an M9.

BTW, I don't think one is inherently more reliable in function than the other. The finish on the M9s my units had was not as durable as the finish on the M1911A1. Either gun will shoot well enough to put all rounds in the chest of the silhouettes at 50 yards. I have used both pistols on the rifle and MG ranges for illustration of weapon capabilities and to motivate some poorly "motivated" soldiers.

I like the M 9. I loved the 1911. Do I want my old 1911 back...probably not.
Here's a quick list(in my opinion)of +/- for each.

1)1911 -they were worn out by the 1980's
-the sights weren't great

2)M9 -better sights
-less recoil
-more ammo in the same size/weight package
-NATO standard calibre

J.M. Browning's legacy still soldiers on in the M2, because of that, Mr. and Mrs. America can sleep well at night.

packrat

I am an M1911 fan. I've shot both, carried both, and like both the M1911 and the M9. for some reason, I have better luck with the M9 at the longer (100 m.+) ranges. I think the .45 is probably a better man killer, but it is still "just" a pistol round.

Having said that, when I left active duty the first time, I took command of a National Guard unit that had a rack full of pristine M1911s, including some real early s.n. guns. These weren't beat apart.

The problem with the M9, right now, is that the ones that are being used by deployed units are getting beat to crap. It is nowhere near as durable as the M1911. But, I gotta have a certain amount of confidence in it, it is what I've been issued.

Thanks for the story.

I have no experience with either design but from what I hear, the M9 was beaten by designs from SIG and H&K, but was selected for purely politcal reasons, mainly, access to an Italian air base, which I believe they used to to fly B-52s from in Iraqi Freedom. I also hear that those who can chose, like Special Forces, usually opt for the 1911 or SIG, or in some cases the Mk23. Can anyone affirm or deny this?

XWind:

A very fine story about the "Frozen Chosin". My late father also served with the 1MARDIV at "The Reservoir" and was also wounded. What they endured and overcame has been called by some as the greatest feat in the history of warfare.

Semper fi,
Ben H

In RVN, the 5.56mm gave a poor account in heavy jungle cover, and was referred to as "the mouse gun"!! I managed to acquire an M14 while there, and also a M1911A1, both of which I carried in preference to other alternatives. My buddy had an M1903A4 Springfield with scope, but try as I might, he would not part with it!!

Special Ops guys use at least two kinds of H&Ks, both .45 ACP, and I've seen a lot of Sigs. Mainly P220s and P226s, though I thought I might have seen a P228 on a General's bodyguard.

We hear rumblings about a new army pistol, specially set up for night vision and in viola! Mr. Browning's .45 Automatic Colt Pistol. I guess some folks are reexamining the wisdom of having ammo in common with our "allies", when our "allies" have a greater affinity toward our "enemies" than for us.

NATO is dead, because they no longer benefit us. Long live the new central European nations who know what time of the day it is.

What has surprised me, considering that most authorities long ago wrote off all pistols as useful military weapons, is the number of US soldiers with pistols in their hands in recent film of action in Iraq. They seem to be favoured in street fighting. Perhaps they should bring back the .45 M3 SMG...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Better yet, go with the H&K G36K as standard issue rifle and the UMP45 as SMG. That way they can have an entire weapon system on only learn one set of controls and basic maintence/operation.

Packrat,
In order, 1) agree, original sights sucked, 2)the 1911 sights are easy to change,less recoil means less bullet, more ammo but less effective (2=1), NATO standard means our politicians (most of whom can't use a gun let alone pick one) decided to appease the Europeans. It also allowed Beretta to move into the US.

For a rifle the AR-10 would be great for a pistol I'd pick a .45. Either new 1911 or variant, or a decocker like the SIG. (PS. The SIG 226 is much better than the Beretta but was about $5 a piece more on the contract to the government. Murphey's Law of Combat #1 Remember your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.)

I forgot all steel frame and slide required for the pistol.

Sam, I had general issue weapons in mind for my choices mentioned earlier. Believe me, if I had anything to do with procurement -we would be carrying something different for a side arm!

Be that as it may, I would still choose the 9m/m. Perhaps another reason the military switched is because of the more manageable recoil. I don't know this to be a fact, but it sounds reasonable. Of all the autoloading pistol/smg cartridges, the 9m/m is far and away the most popular. True, it is older and weaker than the venerable .45, the Wehrmacht used it, but it is still here, and with good reason -it works.

I also believe the .45 ACP will soldier on. When it comes to Special Forces the .45 has no equal. If you want the impossible done -they need the best. J.M. Browning gave us the best.

packrat

I was in C/3/1 Special Forces the day we got new M-9's. We got to keep about 50 45's for training because some allied units had them, but it was rare to see one to the field. Our Battaltion Commander had come from Delta--he ALWAYS carried a 45 until he got busted by the Group Commander for carrying a 45 during a parade when the M-9 was the "official" sidearm of our unit. Then he went straight to the PX and bought a water pistol that looked like an M-9, painted it black and left it in an issue holster in the coat rack in his office. Then, any time he needed to wear a pistol for ceremonial reasons, he didn't have to go the arms room. We loved that guy.

Our M-9's were accurate, but the finish wore too fast and they never did inspire much confidence, even with that big, fat magazine. As for "being able to choose," some SF units could and some couldn't. It depended on the mission and the chain of command. That always struck me as a good idea--there is a good reason for standardized weaponry, and it has to do with getting resupplied in the field. SF units go to great lengths to get the best operational personnel they can, but they often get stuck with whatever the Army sends them to work in the Supply Room, the parachute loft and the personnel office. If some dope in the supply room hears that Okie John needs pistol ammo right now, I could not count on him being able to think of anything but "9mm," so it made sense to have what the lowest common denominator in the unit was able to handle. Sad, but there it is.

As for alternate choices, I saw a few SIGs, which were reserved for people with small hands, and a few M&K P-7's in the hands of General's drivers and couriers. But those guys were on duty 24/7, and carried their pistols in an issued Milt Sparks Summer Special. Other than that, once the M-9 hit the arms room, it was pretty much the M-9 or nothing. Unless you carried your personal Browning Hi-Power that, ahhh, no one knew about and you used to keep hidden in your barracks room. But I never would have done that. Okie John.