Just finished reading an article on the Army replacing the Beretta 92 and all I can say is pretty much whatever. The accusations are it breaks easy, it's hard to shoot, it's complicated, it's not accurate, it doesn't kill people like the 45 did. Well, the 1911 45 is supposedly "a complicated manual of arms" (I guess, if you have an IQ of four maybe...I've yet to figure out what's complicated about a 1911 or 92FS). As for stopping power, it's ball ammo. The old adage they all fall to hardball is pretty much nonsense. Change our service weapon to a 45 and the girls will whine it kicks too hard. Give them a .40 and they definitely will. I'll tell you right now I'd rather have a 92FS over ANY spur hammer 1911 any day and I'll take its reliability over 90% of the 1911's out there (and I love 1911's). I've had three 92's and I've never had a failure of any kind and every one of them was easily capable of head shots at 25 yards offhand. I think what we really need in our armed forces is less diversity and a commander in chief who doesn't hate this country. Everything else is just fluff and back room cronie capitalism. We'd have won WWI and WWII whether we had a 9mm pistol or a 45 because that had nothing to do with winning a fight. We won because we wouldn't accept loosing as an option. I'd personally like to see us adopt THAT back.

Had a 2nd cousin in the 1st ID with my Dad during the second great misunderstanding. Bumps as he was called, was a bazooka man. Whilst clearing the City of Aachen, and while on the Cathedral steps where Charlemagne had been crowned, Bumps had a close encounter with a MP-40 armed Jerry, that promptly ran a burst up Bumps' leg. He caught 4 or 5 rounds going from just below the knee to dang close to the groin. Bumps managed to clear leather and kill the man with one round from his 1911 .45.

I never got to meet Bumps as he died from a heart attack while stationed in Vietnam but he and my Dad were like brothers. My Dad, now 88 has always kept a 1911 close, and told me once if you have to abide by the Geneva Convention, use a .45.

One issue was the open slide and dirt getting in and gumming up the works.
Easy fix, have to fiddle with it with the extra slide weight tat would come with the fix.

Sitting for many iterations in the pistol Qual tower tells me why it is not as lethal as many would want. Do you know how many folks miss the 5 and 7 meter targets.

One can not miss fast enough.

45 would be better if folks were pistol shooters methinks, but few folks can shoot a pistol and a combat situation is likely to disturb our aim considerably.

And I have carried my 1911's with ball ammo and felt quite comfortable and I certainly wouldn't want to rely on a 9mm with ball ammo. I personally don't have any idea what the solution to this dilemma is but I know you aren't gonna please everyone. I was adamantly against the change from .45 to 9mm when that took place. But, after some warming up to the 92FS I can tell you it's a darn fine gun. Not perfect, but no gun is. I'll leave it at that...I was getting real political and had to delete several lines that would probably just get me in trouble:) I will say I love the .45 and was raised on it. I don't think it's complicated at all, nor do I think the 92 is either as that article implied. Some good pistol training might go a long way to resolving the issues...shot placement and knowing how to fight with a pistol is key. I personally would want a 1911 (no question about it) but I wouldn't want just any old 1911 either. Out of the box an XDm might be a much better solution. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. If it were me in charged of weapons appropriations I might hold off until we had a real American Pres but I'm getting political again...

Can't miss fast enough. The other side of the high capacity spray and pray issue is folk who wrongly believe you can hit someone just about anywhere with a .45 and knock them off their feet. Good, realistic training is the best answer regardless of caliber.

a single F35... Otherwise, a 1911 and training works.

--
Of the Troops & For the Troops

although in a much more peaceful setting...

it's a small world.

You shoot somebody in the right place (with just about anything) and they'll fall dead like a sack of 'taters.

Shoot them in the wrong place and they'll kill you for it

That I have heard.

….I'm holding the wrong end of a baseball bat. And I don't have small hands.

Ergonomics and trigger function, to me it's one of the worst guns I've ever fired. (if not the worst)

Just a couple of thoughts here.

Pistol engagements sometimes produce complete misses. If misses are expected, tolerated and pooh-poohed in training, misses in combat are the predictable result. If I can teach girls to shoot well enough with 40's to qualify on my course, the armed services can do it too. The difference is that I'm not going to settle for anything less. In the rare instance where one of either gender cannot or will not apply the basics and qualify, after two attempts with remedial instruction? They're gone. The policy states they shall be terminated- not 'may'.

Pistol engagements also produce hits; and some of those hits are going to impact support structures necessary for the opponent to remain ambulatory, upright and fighting. Right there is where a larger, heavier bullet pays dividends. The patriarchs were not wrong on this.

PS- I actually like the 92/M9 except for its upside-down safety mechanism. They should have fielded the G model from the outset.

You might have strayed off the pistol topic and into politics a bit. In the end they'll spend a truck-load of money and it's only 50% likely they'll actually adopt anything this time either. If they do it will be a compromise with as many detractors as the M9 or the M1911. The M9 shortcomings are obviously overstated to justify the process. It is a fine service weapon and the majority of it's stopping power woes are related to NATO ball ammunition and training. I agree it should be a G model but big Army insists on a safety. The Air Force carries it with the safety off as it should be and uses the lever as a decocker. Hey I was first issued a Smith & Wesson M56 2" .38 Special with 130 grain ball. That fit my needs as an aircrew defensive weapon just fine. Let's go back to that!!

--
Colonel, USAF (Ret)
NRA Life Member

It's not a small gun by any stretch but it fits my hand like a glove. I have big hands but average fingers. The trigger reach in DA mode is a bit long for a DA pull for me but add a 92D main spring (the factory spring for the DA only model) and it improves both DA and SA pulls considerably and reliability remains 100%. Also, you can set the hammer on the first notch, the safety notch in the hammer, and it pulls the trigger back just a hair making the original length perfect and it's perfectly safe. The hammer can't be pushed off nor is it like a 1911 on the safety notch where a pull of the trigger will drop it...it has to go through the entire rest of the DA pull before it can fall. Probably the best approach will be something like the Sig250 or the other version that is striker fired. A point and shoot proposition with interchangeable grip frames to fit all hands. I guess hammer drop safeties, SA safeties and such confuse people and I've had the frustration of trying to help people "get it" on the range. I just kinda wonder why if they aren't gun oriented people, why do they join the military under a combat MOA...or law enforcement? I guess it is what it is.

I finally got used to the safety. Also a lot of people use the safety to slingshot the slide (me included) and they complain it inadvertently applies the safety. I never had that problem because I instinctively grab them from above with my fingers underneath the levers. Makes sense to me if the safety is applied by pulling it it down the don't pull down on them unless you want it on:)

That was sorta my main point with bureaucrats trying to solve a gun problem. Trying to keep my personal and moral biases restrained in this topic is difficult to say the least but the last thing I want to do is offend anyone (well, friends that is...I don't care if I offend a liberal!). I'm not sure going back to a revolver might not be a bad idea. You don't have high capacity but they can be had to fit all hand styles and they are way way WAY more instinctive in use and most people generally shoot them better. Most of the time I carry my 4" GP100. It may only have six rounds but they are decisive rounds and accurate.

Why is it the rest of the world (at least as far as I know) is content with the 9mm, have been even when we were using the Forty Five, still is, and doesn't seem to be looking to replace it yet we are constantly in this state of flux? Now I may be wrong on this and I know there are folks on this forum who know way more than I ever will about it but it seems the entire world for the most part has adopted the 9mm, is happy with and even many police departments are returning to it after a brief romance with the .40.

The rest of the world (the part I'm familiar with anyway) has VERY restricted access to guns of any kind and their concept is that the 38 is a BIG gun and the 9mm is even MORE BIG and anything over 38/9mm is OVERKILL. Although there are a few 45's around here there are no carry permits for them. They are a "sporting use only" weapon and ammo is VERY hard to come by. The 9mm is seen as a REAL gun as folks have nothing to compare it to except the anemic national 38 spl RNL at 650 or so out of a 4" barrel. So 9mm at over 1,000 fps out of a 4" pistol barrel is HOT STUFF - what more could you want? And, since folks shoot very little, the low recoil of the 9mm is heavy enough to keep 'em happy.

Plus there's the pistol as a "badge of authority" instead of a tool for permanently dissuading those who seek to disrupt what passes for civilized life. If it's only to be worn as a symbol of authority - what does it matter what caliber it is?

One question that I have is this: The Germans in WWII were no slouch in choosing their small arms. Most of their infantry weapons were the best in the world (though I consider the Garand superior to the K98). The germans would never have settled for second best and if something didn't work well, they developed something that did.... Yet they chose the 9mm Para over all the other rounds that were available at that time. If the 9mm had marginal performance you can bet that the Wehrmacht would have replaced it in a heart beat, yet they chose to keep it and even more made it one of their primary cartridges, second only to the 7.92 x 57. My question is why did they keep it if it was even remotely marginal?

n

Marginal is an American concept based on the luxury of too many options and too much idle time. If I'm not carrying my 4" GP100 I'm carrying my tiny little Sig 938 9mm and 100% confident I can use it to great effect and not worried about it being a 9mm at all. If all I had was ball loads, one through a vital organ is gonna take the fight out of most men and one to CPU is immediately decisive. This was really the point of my OP. We had to demonize the 1911 to switch to the 9mm Beretta. Now, the very same arguments used against the 1911 in favor of the 9mm 92FS are being used to demonize the 92 for an excuse for a new pistol. So few of our troops even carry pistols you almost have to ask what's the point. If it were my command, every one of them would have a rifle and a pistol and would be proficient with both or they wouldn't be in my army:) Personally, I don't care if we replace our service pistol, especially if they are nearing the end of their useful service life. I want our troops to have the best. I just think they should pick something, stick with it and refine it over the years. The new Colt Marine Corps 1911 would be a fine choice but it sure would be expensive compared to something like an XDm.

The Wehrmacht wasn't dealing with hopped up Islamists like we were in the Phillipines, or coincidentally the Middle East. Remember too that a large number of European police agencies issued .32 automatics as their primary weapon for years.The sooner the U.S. Army goes back to the .45ACP the better. 1911, Glock, HK, or whatever. A good .30 caliber rifle would be a step in the right direction too.

!

It keeps the gun makers developing new and innovative weapons, the government developmental funding keeps the whole military industrial complex alive and vital. If Uncle Sugar is going to give money away I'd damn sure rather it go to a gun maker than a Detroit welfare crack head. Ok, I got a little political. Sorry!

--
Colonel, USAF (Ret)
NRA Life Member

Couldn't agree more:)