I know btter than to jump into this fray, but what the heck.
No one intends to to go to war and hever have to use their sidearm. It is mostly a weapon of last resort. The 1911 issue was flawed. Sorry 1911 fans but the 1911 just like every otther gun isn't p[erfect..
1st of all it had a reputation in the early 70s for jamming and it was difficult to field strip, recoil was difficult for some to control, and the loose fit of the issued 1911s gave them a reputation for being inacurate. The old Colts weren't Wilsons or Kimbers.
The Berretta is reliable and I believe cheaper than the Colt 1911s.
While I believe the 9mm is a good choice for personal or civilian use. We aren't restricted to ball ammo. When given the choice of good defence quality ammo I preffer 9 MM, But the ammo I get uise in my 9MM is better quality than than what our sol.iers get in either 9mm or .45 acp. The Berretta is pretty reliable, but I wonder if the military wouldn't have been better served with a Ruger, Sig or more traditional style design without the somewhat fragile locking block .
US Military replaced the 1911 with M9 Beretta. Why?
Moderator: carlson1
Re: US Military replaced the 1911 with M9 Beretta. Why?
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
- Dragonfighter
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2315
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: US Military replaced the 1911 with M9 Beretta. Why?
The 1911 I was issued for some outings, I loved like an ugly sister. When I first went to qualify it was jamming pretty regularly due to an improperly fitted spring (trapped the casings between the receiver and slide). Once that was taken care of, that half warn off Parkerized finish and smoothed checkered grip became a favorite. I hated drawing the M-16 but when we actually alerted I drew the 1911. I got to a point where I could hold about a 3-4 inch pattern at 25.
I don't know about field stripping being an issue as we had to do it blindfolded...though I doubt I could do so today, much less in a timely manner.
I don't know about field stripping being an issue as we had to do it blindfolded...though I doubt I could do so today, much less in a timely manner.
I Thess 5:21
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL
"There is no situation so bad that you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield, NASA ISS Astronaut
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL
"There is no situation so bad that you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield, NASA ISS Astronaut
Re: US Military replaced the 1911 with M9 Beretta. Why?
Quite a bit of its reputation for being inaccurate and jamming came from the worn out and poorly maintained ones that were issued by so many units. Take a look at its reputation in earlier wars, like WWII and Korea, and it was a different story entirely. Not sure about the "difficult to field strip" idea. It isn't difficult in comparison to several other firearms I've used and cleaned. It requires no special tools to take apart (although one could reasonably argue that a blanket or towel would be an excellent idea to keep the small parts from rolling away), and can be cleaned properly with only a few items. Most of its poor reputation came out of its earlier reputation for reliability and supposed need for zero maintenance, which lead to poorly maintained, badly worn guns in need of major rebuilding to get them within tolerance (e.g. - worn out recoil springs, barrel links, etc.).Liberty wrote:I know btter than to jump into this fray, but what the heck.
No one intends to to go to war and hever have to use their sidearm. It is mostly a weapon of last resort. The 1911 issue was flawed. Sorry 1911 fans but the 1911 just like every otther gun isn't p[erfect..
1st of all it had a reputation in the early 70s for jamming and it was difficult to field strip, recoil was difficult for some to control, and the loose fit of the issued 1911s gave them a reputation for being inacurate. The old Colts weren't Wilsons or Kimbers.
The Berretta is reliable and I believe cheaper than the Colt 1911s.
While I believe the 9mm is a good choice for personal or civilian use. We aren't restricted to ball ammo. When given the choice of good defence quality ammo I preffer 9 MM, But the ammo I get uise in my 9MM is better quality than than what our sol.iers get in either 9mm or .45 acp. The Berretta is pretty reliable, but I wonder if the military wouldn't have been better served with a Ruger, Sig or more traditional style design without the somewhat fragile locking block .
My personal sidearm isn't a Wilson or a Kimber, it's a low-end Springfield Armory GI model. Its actual street cost is less than a Beretta ($504 new, whereas a Beretta 92FS is listed on Gunbroker for $650). It is as close to the original model M1911A1 as I could find. It shoots well, is immensly reliable and heavy enough to manage the recoil of the .45ACP rounds quite well. It feeds FMJ and JHP equally well, and the only problems I've had with it (aside from a mechanical failure - broken hammer strut) have been traceable to my own handling of the gun (failure to keep my wrist strait during firing).
The concern about its recoil. is mostly derived from legend (e.g. - kicks like a horse! was the watch word in most units I was in). I know it has a stout recoil, but the only people I've known to have trouble with it were fairly small-wristed folks with inadequate strength for shooting ANY large-bore handgun. Now, quite a few people that have shot it don't like it, but that's a personal taste matter, not one of control, accuracy or reliability. Generally, I think that a well maintained M1911A1 is one of the finest, most reliable firearms out there.
As to being restricted to ball ammo, this is the primary reason that I feel the 9x19mm parabellum round is inadequate for a military handgun. The fact is that a 9mm diameter FMJ round will leave about a .22-.25 inch diameter hole, and a .45 FMJ round will leave one closer to .30 inches. Larger holes are to be preferred (even if it's only a LITTLE larger). The provision in the Geneva Conventions that restricts the use of dum-dums and hollow points was intended to make war a little more humane. I'm not convinced that the provision actually does that, since it requires more shots to bring a person down, so the now end up with a larger wound count, so the injury works out much the same. That, however is a topic for a different thread.
I believe you're correct that the primary reason on which the decision was based was a belief that the firearm would only be a weapon of last resort, and that it would only be used as a sidearm for policing activities and by officers primarily in rear echelon areas. I would argue that if there is a need for these people to have a weapon, it should be the best weapon available to them which they can fire accurately. In this case, I believe that the view that the M1911A1 was "too hard" to shoot accurately, that we should buy Italian to support our allies, and that we need to get in line with our NATO allies on handguns won out over keeping the ammunition, persuading our allies of its better performance, and if necessary, finding a handgun that could outperform a properly maintained M1911A1.
Re: US Military replaced the 1911 with M9 Beretta. Why?
Troops can carry more 9mm that 45? The resistance to full auto weapons was because generals didn't want the "men" wasting ammo.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... (Jefferson quoting Beccaria)
... tyrants accomplish their purposes ...by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms. - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
Re: US Military replaced the 1911 with M9 Beretta. Why?
Actually, the 'men' DO waste ammo. I recently read a story of an Afghanistan firefight with the soldiers complaining that their M4s got too hot to reload. They all were in the "spray 'n' pray" mode. We heard the same stories from Viet Nam. But that's another argument.TLE2 wrote:The resistance to full auto weapons was because generals didn't want the "men" wasting ammo.
I was in the Army during the transition. I liked the M1911, but I shot the M9 a lot better. I had to concentrate to score Expert with the .45; with the 9mm it was easy - the bullets seemed almost to find the targets on their own. I bought my own 92F for home defense and really enjoyed shooting it, but when I got my CHL I found it too large and heavy to conceal easily. I sold it and bought a 9mm Beretta 9000S - smaller, lighter, easy to conceal, and shoots a lot like my 92.
Although it's a big, heavy, pistol, I think the M9 is certainly more than adequate. More soldiers can shoot it accurately. 9mm ammo is lighter and cheaper, and standardization makes our NATO allies happy. Soldiers don't conceal their handguns, and they ARE last-resort, personal defense weapons. I never served in combat, but I always thought, whether issued a .45 OR 9mm, that I would somehow always manage to have a rifle handy if I ever found myself in a shootin' war. No pistol can compete with the accuracy, range, and effectiveness of a battle rifle.