The M9 vs New M17, Did the US Govt Even Get a Pistol as Good as its Predecessor?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2024
- America's Rifle Order here: smallarmssolutions.com/home/th...
SIG ROMEO1PRO 1x30mm 6 MOA Red Dot Sight amzn.to/3VzK6Qr
Beretta Holster amzn.to/3IWGjVR
TekMat Gun Cleaning Mat amzn.to/4aB00hy
M17 Gun Cleaning Kit amzn.to/3IWziEz
SLS Tactical Holster amzn.to/3vzJRdC
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/donate-to-small-...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com/shop/smallarms...
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challengetargets.com/SFNT...
Otis Tech Gun Cleaning Gear - Code SAS15 - 15% off
otistec.com/?ref=sas15
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
g96.com
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410 - กีฬา
Sig paid $216 per m17 to win the contract. Research it, you’ll see I’m NOT making this siht up! They low bid and won. It’s funny that some general that was part of the bid process now works for Sig. Imagine that.
No shock at all.
$176.00 Is what the Army paid per pistol. At least that's what the Sig Sauer Reps told us when they conducted the New Equipment Training (NET) when the pistols were fielded to us.
Back when I was in, out of nowhere they started enforcing 670-1 on boots (we all had synthetic or leather boots from Oakley) all of a sudden we had to buy our boots from the PX because there were only 2 companies that made the “in spec boot” (Oakley had a brand symbol on it). We were given something like 1 month to get the right boots. Literally by the end of the month the jackass general that sent out the ALCON had retired and was on the board of one of the 2 companies that was making the boot.
Previous to that, I was in a testing unit. One day we had VIPs coming in that were the guys from the company that made the thing we were testing (the program was shit). All the civi board members were enjoying the dog and pony that my leadership was putting out. There was this guy who looked bored out of his mind. Turns out he had been a general who pushed for this BILLION $ program, and as soon as it was approved, he retired and was hired by the company.
Some of these asshole generals need to fall on their swords.
Yeah ita public info how much the entire contract price was, and you divide that by the quantity of pistols and you get like $180ish bucks per pistol, and I'm sure some sort of spare parts and magazines tossed in there. That's an absolutely smoking deal. That's why they won the contract, price.
@@breed4659 Yes and it was NOT due to the “stellar” performance of that gun either. They still to this day can’t get past the gun still firing when dropped at the right angle at the back of the slide and going ((( BANG !!! )))
If the military was going to skip the endurance testing, they should’ve bought M9A3 pistols.
And still use them wrong.
From what I've read it did not meet the Statement of Work, so it was not allowed in the selection process.
Simple answer to how and why. Look at who picked up cush jobs after retirement or bought stock in Sig before announced as winner.
The "Big picture" just going with that M9a2 and a compact version of the same. Or just buying G17(X)s and G19(X)s would accomplish the same overall. Both are proven, Glock had as much of a chance as BBQ ice cream sandwich with onions. To much of the military leadership would jump in a volcano before not having a viable mechanical applied safety.
The reason for needing a new handguns for services was the same that was needed in 1980s the issue one's were worn-out. The issue of why some are unused and other worn-out is what units that had them, then some would be just used for range and field use by everyone and some set in arms rooms for parade. Of course the command had brand new if possible.
Just a point of experience, of having a new M9 issued then to be signing out the pistol to find old grips, slide and barrel on it. Our M-9s were being stored in a different unit arms room until our units arms room got certified for operation.
Or just Glocks
specially if they were going to go to two gun solution...beretta now makes a compact version of the M9...
I would like to reiterate a critical point. This and all my videos are not about brand loyalty. It is about the failure of the testing. The completely failure to compete two pistols in phase 2 testing which determines if the guns meet the specifications for the program. Both the Sig and Beretta did this in 1985. After both were determined as acceptable , then the cost and competitive bidding starts. Either pistol wins, you have a gun that meets the specs. This DID NOT happen with the MWS program. Over 12 guns competed in phase 1 downselection testing. Sig and Glock remained as the only two which passed. The phase 1 did not contain the testing to determine if the pistols met the standards for the weapons. That is when you move to phase 2. This did not happen. A gun was picked not knowing if it met the standard of the requirement. The Army had no idea what the pistols capabilities were. I own both Sig and Glock pistols. This is NOT about brand loyalty but the process which failed the American soldier.
I remember you mentioned this way back when I first came across your channel. A friend of mine who just joined the Air Force late last year bought an M18 before going in and had to send it right back to Sig for warranty work because it was horrendously unreliable out of the box. They're simply too many stories floating out there about QC issues, guns catastrophically failing (Ben Stoeger has been talking about this in recent months), Navyman has a pretty good video talking about the various issues the company has been having. Tools and Targets won't even buy another Sig because of having severe issues with a P322 and repeatedly bad interactions with Sig customer service.
If the military had done proper phase 2 testing I think a lot of these issues would have showed up and either Sig would have been made to remedy them or Glock would have won the contract instead. It's a damn shame this is what our soldiers are being saddled with, having to beta test these things in the field may end up getting them killed.
Thank You For That 😊
Anybody who is anybody who's followed your channel CB knows your info is legitimate and non bias.
This is the 4th video you've made ranting and raving on this. Your biases are clear as a bell. The way comments that question your motives get deleted proves it.
Indeed, that testing would have certainly vetted out the issues encountered with the Sig. The whole situation stinks, like there were backroom deals that lined pockets. I think if phase 2 testing had been conducted, the Glock would have likely been the next pistol despite being more expensive.
I would like to make another point to all. At no point have I said the Government should have adopted the Glock over the Sig. My issues were with the Army’s lack of following their own procurement process which included the elimination of the most important part of the testing protocol. Which includes the durability, reliability, interchangeability, cold, hot, mud, dust, sand, salt bath, ice as well as troop trials. Those tests determine if a weapon meets the requirements of the contract. Winner, losers or all winners which lead to competitive bidding. To be sure our troops get the best pistol available, one that meets and exceeds the requirement.
Meh sounds like normal glock fanboi butthurt stuff.
@@thomgizzizSo you don’t listen good, do you. I’m a fan of Baretta and have zero Glocks or Sigs. He is obviously a Baretta fan. If you were so biased, you’d see that.
From what I see they just went into bidding Sig learned a lesson in 1985 now they just went strait for the jugular and went how low can you go probably at cost since they jumped on it asap.
In the XM9 program, every test was performed along with a 1911 control weapon. To perform significantly worse than the 1911 control gun in even ONE of the tests (even if you were miles ahead in ALL the others) , meant to be kicked out of the competition.
In the XM17 program, there was not a M9 control weapon around to be seen.
things are much more lazily done now in days
Things were a lot less corrupt back in the XM9 days too.
@@DinnerForkTongue That is an incredibly optimistic statement. If anything, corruption was far more rampant then versus now because it was easier to hide.
@@cstgraphpads2091 Not really, no. The cats are now fatter and simply got sloppier. Now leak and sites get demonetized/un-sponsored, made to not show up in search engines, and a hundred other forms of censorship.
@@cstgraphpads2091 Nice, my reply got shadowbanned. I'll try to repost it later.
Sounds like the Beretta had the same problems the M16 did: poor gov't implementation by using bad ammo.
Magazines. I had to go out on the economy and buy real Beretta magazines several times in my career.
Your listening comprehension needs to improve.
@@monotech20.14what
It was hit job and sabotage pure and simple as they wanted to get rid of it. WHY? Because Beretta didn't hire ex generals and colonels in charge of procurements like the MiC does like Cockheed and Boeing. I encountered M9s in the field, which were beaten to shit and also had old locking blocks on it. On my own deployment, I actually asked an industry friend to send me a Beretta maintenance kit of new springs and the latest locking block from Beretta. No jams or issues with mine during my time carrying it. USACE, GRD-N Mosul '05.
@@monotech20.14 your manners needs to improve
I’m tired. I’m tired of this government spending so much money on the military yet barracks remain moldy, troops not getting top of the line gear, and a overall negligence. Makes you wonder where the money is going
Congressional POCKETS
Ukraine and then back to Joe and his cronies.
Right now it’s going to Ukraine to be laundered for the politicians in DC, among others. Sickening, isn’t it.
To social engineering programs to make sure the get enough transexual troops
@@kens17761 we give Israel billions every year, let’s stop giving to everyone. And I’m sure frump didn’t take any either 😂
I've always thought there should be an investigation into how sig won every contract for new small arms for the army
I agree but the investigation should be the Army’s lack of use of its own testing protocols and adopting a firearm.
The MGs actually seem to be good (time will tell of course) and the XM7 seems okay to replace the SCAR-17, but the M17/18 is hot crap and what're the odds that Sig wins everything fairly? At this point I'm surprised the Army hasn't adopted the MPX just to spite us.
Back in the early 1980s, I had a friend who was an engineer with Vought Aircraft. He said Vought decided not to compete on a particular Air Force contract because the ex-generals they had weren't as good as the ex-generals who worked for the competition.
Have you actually spent time observing the Army? That’s the big problem!!!! The US Army is the manifestation of Apathy. They do everything substandard and over budget. Hated when we had Soldiers attached on a convoy. Just look at how much My beloved Corps spent on developing the digital camp pattern as to how much the Army spent on the ACU to adopt German multi cam in the end.
@@MattAllison-bz3rc While I agree with you, multicam is from Crye, an American company based in NY. OCP (the current camo) is a US government owned variant of multicam. We could have saved so much money by just going with that in the first place.
Furthermore, Beretta offered to continue the M9 contract with the M9A3 AT THE SAME UNIT PRICE AS THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT. So no cost other than the pistols to upgrade inventory to the A3 varient, which was a major upgrade. Instead the Army decided to waste money on a "competition", and adopt an un tested pistol.
That would havebeen the best option. From my experience the M9 is a great gun, all of the problems I saw were due to worn out springs, after decades of service.
LMFAO. Trying to pass off Beretta as the best pistol provider in 2024
Reminds me of the new untested camo pattern that only blends in with a certain couch until it's so dirty that it turned khaki
I do believe the Army should have gone to the Glock 19 service wide, but they’d have been much better off with the M9A3. I liked the M9. It’s what I qualified with, but the M9A3/4 is a hell of a pistol. Damn fine by my estimation!
@@great_deception Better than Sig with guns that fail about 40% of the time and still going off in holsters, so…what are you laughing at?
So I was a 91F (small arms repair and artillery) at one of the first SOF units to receive the M17s amd M18s. In the first batch we had to return around 30% of the pistols back to sig for broken recoil springs. They informed us that it was the packing grease(BS). We ran into issues with the pistol triggers failing to reset and failure to fire. After working on the problem for 4 years they never managed to fix the issue to my knowledge because they where on version 5-6 or 7 of the trigger bar when I left. The thumb safety had an issue of snapping at the center of its rod. The LCI would get stuck after firing a few mags. That is a headlining fault according to the TM. After I discovered that every fired M17 and M18 in the unit was technically non deployable. Because I brought up the issue sig had a revision mad to the TM. The whole program is a joke and the system is a joke. Im furious that sig is putting soldiers lives on the line for money. Ill put it this way the Teams are still running the glocks and leaving the sigs in the arms room. We still to this day have sigs with the original sig tags on them.
First time I tore apart a p320 (gen 1.5) I lost all faith in it. I personally think sig used the p320 to learn how to make the much better p365 series.
@@heinzamatic Exactly. They are still having to fix the recalled parts on the 365 haha. Hopefully they stop making new versions of it and fix all the problems first.
That's the feedback I've gotten. The Sigs are safe queens. Most are not giving up the Glock.
Which group were you with?
When? New issue M18s at MARSOC had none of those issues in 2021. There were issues with failure to return to battery and front and rear sights coming loose. And the Glock is the SOCOM pistol, Sigs are for HQ personnel--even enablers get the Glock 19. Your post doesn't ring true at all.
The fact that they didnt even look at the Beretta M9A3/4 for replacement is total bullshit.
They did, it wasnt "modular"
Suing the US Government for Brand Damages was the Kiss of Death for Beretta
@@ThePimpedOutPlatypus At least for government contracts, even though descriminating like that is against the law.
@morgan3688 For sure. It'll never be openly admitted; the project managers will take the submissions, and then 86 them 🤷🏽♂️
@@ThePimpedOutPlatypus Its more that they will be very careful to specifically design the competition to exclude beretta without looking like they are excluding beretta. For example, with this program beretta could only submit one pistol. They had to choose, do we offer an m9 upgrade, or do we offer px4/apx/something new.
And since the military already had beretta working on an upgrade, guess what beretta thought they wanted.
Kind of wish Glock won the contract honestly. That way everyone's romanticism around the brand can be shattered when they realize (like the Beretta) that failures happen when you never replace recoil springs, never perform maintenance, issue third party poor quality magazines, and let pistols shoot themselves apart. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with Glock, but Beretta was dragged through the mud because of hurt feelings and fuddlore.
That was my mindset when I first shot the M9. I thought it was ass. Turns out everything big army does, they suck at maintenance. They fail to provide.
Agree. I’d rather have a LTT beretta than a staccato personally. The 92 is great
The Army would not have choosen Beretta even if they were the ONLY manufacturer that came to the table.
@@epiccowboymemes2042 Of course not, the purpose of the trials was to replace the Beretta, not to find a better pistol. Besides this is the same army that equipped the Taliban with billions of dollars worth of next generation weaponry, munitions, and vehicles.
@@FoxtrotFleet The same Army that compromised the M16 in favor of keeping the M1 and M14, and the same army that should have been brought forth to a military court for treason for cramming M1 ball propellant into the XM193 ammunition fielded to troops in Vietnam.
I was a tanker (19k) for 6yrs & carried the M9 as my sidearm, I liked it & had zero probs with it.
I like my 92 SF.
Fellow tanker here as well (except I was in for 20 years), and I experienced several issues with the lousy issued mags and guns that weren't maintained. Once I said screw it and started replacing my own springs and using my own factory Beretta mags, I had no further issues and loved the M9.
@@M2fiftycalI was in mid 90's & our M9's were in really good condition & had never been in action, i'm sure that had alot to do with my experience, 👍
>Did the US Govt Even Get a Pistol as Good as its Predecessor?
No.
M1909>M1892
They should have gone with the Glock instead of Baretta. It was silly to stick with a metal frame.
@@CR67Ehhhhh I’d say the P226 was the best choice.
@@myusername3689 The P226 wasn't around when they finally retired the 1911, and is the result of trying to offer something different, but otherwise at least as good as Glock.
I was around Corando Island in 1983 (Before the movie, that made SEALS famous, and everybody wanted to be one.) and they told me the military (Especially the Army, and somewhat the Marines) wasn't going to approve of a pistol WITHOUT a manual safety.
I don't see the Beretta out performing the Glock 17 without someone "nudging" it out of the contest. The SIG P226 didn't have the manual safety, and lost the competition. The SEALS chose the P226, and kept it till recently. There are a bunch still floating around I bet, but the Glock 19 is a lot more durable with salt water so it got the nod for them.
Yes it was SEAL testing that revealed the slide separation issue on the M 9, and led to the choosing of the P 226 also. The fix seemed to work, so slide separation wasn't a huge problem.
I will never be convinced that there wasn’t corruption involved in all these SIG contracts. They didn’t finish the testing on the pistols and the M7 rifle is kind of a joke.
Are you speaking facts that you can support?
So is the ammunition for it.
@@CountryRacing186 you are a sheep
@@CountryRacing186 you are a sheep
@CountryRacing186
Sometimes it's so obvious that no facts need to be cited. It's like saying the sky is blue, or the grass is green. We don't need a scientific study to tell us this.
M9a3 was the correct choice. No change to training and logistics would’ve been easier due to part compatibility with the m9.
Agreed
In my opinion, Glock would have been a better choice. The M9A3 is a fantastic pistol but far too heavy for a modern military sidearm.
@@boomerisadog3899 M9 weighs just as much as a Glock does.
@@bigboyentertainment944 The M9 is significantly heavier than any Glock.
The beretta is a fine weapon but it is way to heavy. Dont forget, it is a secondary weapon, not a primary. And soldiers are already carrying to much weight as it is.
The M9 is a P38 more or less. They work perfectly with 80 years of experience and testing. No reason to change that it other than for greedy purposes.
The M9A1 was a unicorn. It was the pistol that we were supposed to get but very few ever received one. The Marine Corps bought lots of new M9 (not A1s) with plastic recoil guide rods instead of M9A1 which were more desired and the Safariland Holster with better retention that did not require the lanyard loop. Instead, the Marine Corps standardized the SERPA holsters for everyone that did not work with M9A1s and all of the new contract pistols were M9s. Opportunity missed for improving pistols for your average Marine because the Marine Corps pushed out a study that said most people could not hit anything with a pistol under combat conditions even after extensive training, but Marines were deadly with rifles, so pistols were not important.
I work for a sheriff’s department and we transitioned from the Glock 23 to the Sig P320 (original design) due to their offer to swap out all the weapons at cost. I actually bought my Glock 23 for $300. Well, our run with Sig lasted about a year due to 2 deputies that I know of having unintentional discharges. One got shot in his hip while the gun was holstered. We’re back to new Glocks now! As for my personal carry? A Beretta 92fs.
And here we go with the "It just went off all by itself".
If you know how the 320 is designed... and you understand how the fire control unit works...
There is a secondary sear notch, so IF the sear were to lose control of the striker, the second notch would catch it *unless the trigger is pulled to the rear* .
There is also a striker blocking mechanism so that even IF both sear notches failed, the striker cannot reach the primer on a chambered round anyway *unless the trigger is pulled to the rear* .
Meaning that three safety mechanisms would all have to fail at the same time for the gun to "just go off". If that happens to you, buy a freakin' lottery ticket, brother! (or just admit that you or your clothing or a drawstring or your holster pulled the trigger).
@@HalfCrazy520 yeah. NDs with Glocks have been pretty common. That's not because the Glocks are broken...
With a new pistol, people took the opportunity to avoid responsibility by blaming the pistol.
And yet we still spent $1 billion on testing the MHHC for a COTS system before we even had a single gun.
As a operator and maintainer of m17, issues we are already seeing come up. A lot of the m17s have a break-in period where you have to lubricate the shit out of them, or they will have weird issues. We're seeing a lot of instances of slides having to be assisted into battery for the first couple hundred shots. After that they work fine and you can follow the normal lube order. I have fired factory new handguns before and I've never seen that issue be so common. The other thing is that the tan coating on the slide is wearing off very quickly. The military is already looking at acquiring tan solid film lubricant so we can touch up the slides.
I believe that Sig's rifling actually starts a little earlier in the chamber than is normal, because headspace gauges and dummy rounds intended for the M9 are getting stuck in the m17s. When we managed to get those devices unstuck, they have grooves from the lands cut into the tips of them.
the aesthetics of the m9 just cant be beat.
Sig wins the handgun competition and then wins the rifle/machine gun competition with a round that burns through barrels so quickly they have to use "training" ammo instead of training with the service ammo....
The entire US system is corrupt top to bottom. Literally everything is a scam in this country.
The XM7 is pretty much DOA. None have been issued and they drastically reduced the number they plan to order. The Army even stated that they don’t intend to replace the M4, and that the XM7 will be just another “tool in the toolbox” for the close combat force.
@@coreyp9211 I would expect the next longer term move will be another upgrade to the M4. Maybe it will be a "block 3" program to rechamber the inventory into something like 6 Max where the barrel and mag is the only thing to be changed and a suppressor will be added. I could eventually see 7.62x51 going away for a 338 round that offers a 25% or more increase in range because of a higher bc.
They are not going to switch calibers.
@@matthewconnor5483The URGI is basically peak M4. I see the weapon basically staying the same, but better optics/electronics being fielded to give the soldier more capability. 5.56 also isn’t going anywhere, its basically perfect for an infantry round. M855A1, Mk262, Mk318, all seem to perform really well. I could see 7.62 being replaced by the new 6.8x51 and .50bmg being replaced by a .338 round.
The Sig Sauer 228/229 did see limited service as the M-11. A sort of consolation prize.
Don't forget the MK25 as issued by the SEALs. They used Berettas until 1989 when they had a nasty accident with it
As a young man I happily purchased a commercial Beretta 92FS in 1990. Not long after, I thought it would be bad assed to buy some Corbon 9mm +P+ to run through it for home defense. While it did feel like I was shooting a 357 magnum with those rounds, the action was running so fast, and slamming hard, you could feel like the gun was getting beat up. That tough gun took it well, but I stopped using that over pressure stuff after that one box. I can't imagine those SEALS regularly running proof rounds through it.
So, you know. Navy SEAls have their very own ability to get the arms, whatever they are on their own purchasing contracts. They don't rely on what the regular services get. And they have their own small arms armourers. If they want a North Korean pistol of a special design for an operation. They can get it. I know.
You know because you heard that from some other rube.
@@HWG-wm8ld yeah people drink the koolaid and think these dudes get what they want. No you're not allowed to bring whatever you want along. You're leaders will make damn sure every man in his platoon is outfitted with what they are ASSIGNED. I've never heard of a SEAL platoon deploying with "whatever they want". Where the fuck are they gonna get the ammo, parts, etc to keep up with them in the field. God damn not everyone is fucking Devgru or Delta lmao
@@raywhitehead730are you implying that the Bavy SEALS are supplied by shady arms dealers?
@@raywhitehead730 ...I wonder how many other "US" Navy Seals anglicize the spelling of words like "armorers..."
Another excellent review..I remember the big controversy in the 1980's when the M9 replaced the 1911..I loved the M9 Beretta then and still consider it an excellent hand gun..
As a currently serving US Marine I have a few thoughts to add.
1. I’ve seen one M9 break its slide in half exactly as your picture shows. It was in 2021 or 2022 in Okinawa. Must’ve been a very old gun.
2. The sights on the M18 can come loose very easily. It was very frustrating when this happened to me during a competition on Quantico last year. (Military completion with issued weapons.)
3. For the average Marine the M18 is better. The trigger and safety are more intuitive for a novice and the grip size really matters for some people, especially women. However, the M9 is a better pistol for true experts who can get the most out of the gun. Basically, if you are on the Marine Corps Shooting Team you prefer the M9, but for everyone else the M18 is better or equal to the M9.
4. The M9A1 rocks! The extra scalloping cut behind the beaver tail is a really nice improvement that is hard to see but really helps for those who have medium or smaller hands.
I've been issued both M9 and M17 since 2014 as a M1 Armor Crewman. Its our primary weapon issued. The M9's were worn out at my duty stations and the mags were just as bad. When we got the M17's at Ft. Riley in 2018 there were some weird issues I found and still persist to even today at my current duty station in 2024.
The weapon (M17) will fail to go into battery randomly. What do I mean?
Say you load it with the slide forward: Insert magazine, grab slide, pull it all the way to the rear, and then it fails to lock up completely. Causing you to press the slide forward.
Say you reload it, slide locked to the rear: Slide locks to the rear, drop magazine, insert fresh magazine, use slide release to release the slide, slide goes forward, FAILS TO GO INTO BATTERY.
This has happened on at least 25-30 pistols in my current unit now in 2024 and nearly all of them between 2018-2021 at Fort Riley. This was done with Factory Sig magazines (Both 17rd and 21rd). These weapons were lubed with CLP, used on flat ranges in Germany (Twice), South Korea, and in the US. This was used on the M17 ranges using US military ammunition and these are US army issued M17 pistols.
How odd is this?
Not going into battery sounds like a worn out recoil spring. In civilian life you would either get a new spring or even a heavier spring but I know the Army is completely anal about common crap.
The issue is this is with brand new guns. I remember getting the M17's out of the box still in blue wrapping and this was an issue. Even the used ones from 3ID still have these issues. We only do M17 qual once or twice a year. (M17 qual is done with 30 rds. So if everyone qualifies first time go then you expend only 60rds a year)@@kevinallies1014
I actually noticed this with the returned M17 slides with the tan firing controls. Was able to scoop 2 of them for my own collection. I noticed they were not going into battery fully like you described and thought that the recoil spring felt very weak. Changed out the recoil spring and didn’t have that issue. I haven’t had any issues with the M17 on Active Duty during qualifications the past 2 years.
Agreed on the recoil spring issue. My personally owned weapons have all had the captive RSA swapped for a solid guiderod and 1911 recoil spring for that reason. Much better and more consistent lockup. Also seen an odd issue with the rear notches of the barrel that sit next to the loaded chamber indicator getting caught on the scallop cut on the inside of the slide. My big takeaway is that I hate the M17 as issued, but if you sink enough money into it, it becomes a good gun.
Agree with commenters here with one exception - if it isn't a recoil spring, the other issue could most likely be a bent ejector. With any other handgun, this isn't the end of the world, just replace the part.
With the M17/18 you need to replace the whole FCU.
This is a fairly common occurrence when you over insert the extended magazine, especially doing slide lock reloads, it's happened to a sizeable amount of USPSA shooters using these guns.
Sig greased the right hands. End of story.
That's how it works. You need to make sure you have enough left over for payoffs.
Look at the new Sig XM7 infantry rifle.
They took that greased hand and did something else with it. The “ replacement” for the M4 is ridiculous.
Years earlier so did Beretta.
That is like saying you bought a new Tundra for $20k and you think you got ripped off due to some large conspiracy or obvious cronyism. 😂
I've shot all of those. Personally, I prefer modern 1911s in 38 Super, 357 Sig, and 10mm, but for the reasons you laid out, the military is better off with guns requiring minimal training and more intrinsic safety, which is why I never thought the Glock was a good idea. I think the P226 should've won in 1985, and then just skip the whole M17/M18 trial boondoggle. As a confirmed 1911 fanboy, I am a trigger snob, but the vast majority of soldiers barely know what a trigger is, let alone take-up, break, or reset. They are far better off with a decocker/safety. Trigger differences really don't matter for them. It seems like there hasn't been an honest eval/award/adoption since the M1 Carbine was adopted in WW2. These repeated messes -- M-14, 7.62 adoption, attempt to sabotage AR, wrong ammo for AR, etc. -- make me question the entire acquisition process.
Interesting video.
My issued weapon in the US Army is a Sig M17. While I haven't personally served in any combat I have carried the weapon for extended periods of time and used it on multiple occasions during range exercises. I can honestly say I've never had any issues with the firearm and have zero issues qualifying expert every range.
The Sig M7=Let’s go back in time to the M-14: Heavyweight rifle with heavyweight ammunition, uncontrollable automatic fire, 20rd Magazines etc.
That round is only be viable for Sniper/DMR, or LMG roles.
The maintenance issue also plagued the 1911. If I recall correctly, the US had not bought 1911s after WWII. No need. Thus, by the time of their replacement, these guns had effectively worn out. Maintenance is always an issue.
Last procurement of the M1911A1 was in the mid 50’s if i recall correctly
@@SmallArmsSolutions Thanks for clearing that up. I was not sure.
Of course, that was about 30 years before the replacement of the 1911.
The Browning Hi Power was evaluated and the 9mmx19mm Parabellum was easier to shoot and the 9mm FMJ projectile penetrated steel pot helmets at greater ranges than the .45ACP did. In my book the FN Hi Power is the 1911 perfected.
great video. I was one of the test shooters in 2017. we identified the issues with the m17 during testing, but its the government. a pvt ND'd while reholstering, or so we thought. then it happened a few more times. $216 per unit was not gonna be beaten. glock was around $320 w/o an external safety iirc. our range had every service in attendance and every rank. we all wanted the 19x lmao. I will say the m17 was clearly better than our nickeled out beat to shit m9s.
Thanks for sharing.
Sigasaurus is not a true SIG. M17 pitiful. P226 beautiful.
I was honestly disappointed by the 226. It's got a worse trigger and more muzzle flip as compared to the Beretta 92. I find the Beretta to be a nicer shooter.
@@GunFunZSThe P226 is am amazing pistol. What killed the Glock is the military wanted a safety and it's a kluge to add a safety to a Glock,
@@Monty22001 it's not that difficult to add a safety to a Glock. It's not necessary but look at every Glock derived striker fire pistol out there. Virtually all of them are offered with the option. Smith & Wesson m&p for example.
@@GunFunZSTrue, but I never liked the Glock safeties they made. The ergonomics on it aren't great. Don't like the M&Ps either much.
@@Monty22001 taste is subjective. I think Glock makes the least refined glocks. I prefer the m&p and even the PSA dagger. They are both shaped for human hands. They both come with much better sights and better slide serrations.
20:55 SIGnificantly cheaper, SIGnificant failure. Definitely keeping that.
"Military Grade" can be officially redefined to mean "Built by the low bidder". That's the sad truth, and I should know, I've been building things for the military for 35 years. They used to choose best value... now it's straight up low bid. Whoever can meet the specifications at the lowest cost wins the contract.
They are both good pistols and what’s done is done. The Sig is the future, for the military. I was actually on a Marine armory detail, packing away the 1911s after doing function testing. We were all amazed. We did thousands of pistols. Very rarely did we find a problem and many of these pistols were dated in the early 40s. They looked great too. We all wanted to by some, but they said that wasn’t possible. I carried a Browning Hi Power for several years before switching to the 226. But, there is a difference between the 45 and the 9mm, but the 9 is satisfactory, easier to shoot for many recruits, and has more capacity. I still love the 1911, the BHP, the Big Sig 226, the Beretta pistols, and still carry them when appropriate. Thanks for the video.
Oh man that M9 laying on that woodland camo is peak aesthetic
The issue I have with the Beretta M9 is it's too big for my hands for me to feel comfortable shooting it. That's one of the reasons I think that the colt 1911 is still so popular even today despite it being an over 100 year old design. The thinner grip of the 1911 makes for a more accurate pistol in my hands and I really don't have any trouble with the recoil of 45 ACP mostly because of another feature of the 1911 having a low bore axis. As much as I think the Beretta is a beautiful pistol I've just never really like them nor have I been a fan of double action pistols that much. Going from a heavy trigger pull to cock the hammer then single action for the remaining shots never felt good to me. I prefer Glocks or a 1911 single only trigger.
My brother USN was issued a 1911 in Iraq. They used to shoot their 1911's at insurgents when they targeted the remote base with light mortars. The technique was to point the 1911s at a 45 degree angle and fire as many rounds as possible in the direction of the incoming mortar rounds. They did this with handguns and rifles, depending on whatever was handy. Doubtful they ever hit anything except the desert floor but it was a moral booster.
@@PassivePortfolios sometimes a moral booster is the most important thing for a person.
@@GarrisonNichols-ow1hb the mortar fire was so inaccurate that it did not cause any casualties. The rounds mostly landed outside the base.
When I did my own personal testing of the then new .40 S&W I used a Beretta M96 in stainless. While I developed no great love for the .40 cartridge, that Beretta performed flawlessly even with me actively abusing and TRYING to get the gun to "blow up".
I have both the M-92 and the M96 in blued. While I am usually a .357 revolver fan, I sometimes use the Berettas as my late-night-at-the-farm gun. I know that they will work, and they carry more rounds. --Old Guy
Goddamn, now that was a good video! No shitty ads or trying to be funny or likeable to get/keep subscribers, just a guy who actually knows what he's talking about, giving his opinion.
There is one aspect of guns with a hammer I love.
I hold my thumb on the hammer when holstering to ensure the gun will not fire.
With striker fired guns there is never a guarantee that the trigger will not catch something and fire the gun when holstering it.
Sig figured it out…. Get the govt contract by literally dropping the price point to where no one would say no… then turned around and increased the price, to cover the original loss per unit sold, to the civilian market….. I understand the business end of it bc it’s smart business and economics especially when ppl will pay it. Just sad that the civilian consumers were literally charged the extra $$ to make up for more than the loss per unit sold to the govt. Great video backed by imperical knowledge. It’s just facts. I appreciate the raw information given. I myself own a Glock 19x. It has been all stock since day 1. I currently have 16k rounds through it without any issues.
You seriously believe Glock wouldn't charge more for the 19X if they had won? The only reason the 19X is $50 cheaper than the M17 is because they lost lmao. $50 is nothing btw, stop pretending there is some major price gap.
I paid 650 for my m17, thats in line with most full size 9mm. A new 92fs is 600, glicks are cheaper but they have things like plastic sights and are not as high quality pistols.
@@MediiiiccDid they charge more for the Glock 17/19 when the fbi. Cia. Secret service. Seal teams. Etc adopted them. No. Sig isa investor driven business that uses it's deep pockets instead of it's engineers to win things. Glock and Smith and Wesson>P320
Sticking with my 92, thank you lol
They absolutely did not get an upgrade with the Sig IMHO. The M9 was just fine and proven. The military contracts are not about the best, they are political and about saving a few cents per unit. I think the Glock would have been a smarter choice or stick with the M9's newer versions.
Glock literally didn’t submit a qualifying gun. The basic requirement was a modular gun. The 19X ain’t that. Beretta’s submission was the APX not the 92X.
@@kevinallies1014Really? I thought it was the M9A3, I remember reading that they had an upgrade package for the M9s
Contracts are about filling Politicians pockets, period end of story.
I say this as a 1911/Hi Power guy......as far as I'm concerned, the Beretta 92/M9 is the SOLDIERS sidearm.
Simple, Sig honeypoted the right person in the government lol
Beretta did too back in the day. Got a base out of it too
Yep. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
@@BIG_ASS_MOOSE wdym
AFAIK the competitor for the XM9 that is close to the Beretta 92FS is the VP70 and during testing the 92FS just outperformed everything
the 92FS exceeded the qualification for the XM9
Beretta won by having cheaper parts than the 226 but this happened after being proven very reliable through multiple phases of testing. The 320 did not go through the same rigorous testing, hence the skepticism.
@@krellio9006 It was the Sig P226, not the HK VP70.
The elephant in the room was that they didn’t improve the caliber, barrel length, or reliability. They only did this to accommodate people with “tiny hands”. Rather than just issue those people a rifle, they wasted millions of dollars and gave everyone an inferior handgun in the process.
Totally agree! I own a SIG P250 , the predecessor of the SIG 320 (250 is hammer fired double action only). The 250 works fine and the 320 uses same basic parts but different "fire control" unit, P250 is also modular. My Bareretta 92FS has been modified by Wilson Combat as a "custom carry" and I would go to war with it. I have no desire to own a P320.
My SIG 227 ( 45 cal version of the 226) is also a gun that I would go to war with.
From what old soldiers told me, they had 9mm go right thru, but Vietnam tought us nothing would put that tribe down but a .45's dead stop power. Not even the gun they tried to beat it with...the .45 ruled Vietnam,s mostest tribe hands down solid history. Love learning about guns , keep up the good work, thank you..🐾🐾🐾🐾😎
The Beretta 92 is way better than the POS Sig 320…I would not carry the 320. I was a former Federal Air Marshal, we carried Sig P 229s…great gun. I love the old school metal framed Sigs. I’ve never had a failure with Berettas. I have had failures with Glock…
The Sig Sauer won the M17, M18, and M5 rifle. We have a very rare pattern here 😮
Thanks greatly video
👉👍👈🖖
Romeo-17, Rattler for seals, MCX for seals, M250, etc....etc...there are more
Excellent video bud! I love my old Beretta 92FS (Desert Storm edition bought in 1991). That pistol probably has around 2,500+ rounds through it and I can't ever remember it not going bang when the trigger is pulled. I've had numerous model 92's and even its sibling the Taurus 92's...all were, and have been, flawless firearms.
My father was in the Jamaican Defense Force. May he Rest In Peace and thank you for the shoutout Chris. 👍🏿✊🏿🇺🇸🇯🇲
I really did like the P320 and hope it gets improved to the point of being drop safe. Love the Beretta 92 because it is made absolutely safe while the chamber is loaded. If I can only have one pistol forever, it will be a Beretta 92. My choice for carry with the G safety put in it.
Some guy named McClain made me want a 92 and an AUG. The 92 is next. I've gotten into collecting military handguns and I have a feeling it's going to be an expensive collection over time.
@@bmstylee Yep. Welcome to your new addiction my friend
Sig did remedy the issue years ago. It was caused from a trigger that was too heavy (in mass), not pull. When dropped from a specific height, at a specific angle, the inertia of the mass of the trigger would continue rearward, mimicking a trigger pull. That has been remedied by a much lighter trigger so there's not enough mass to continue pulling the trigger rearward when dropped. Along with the striker block safety, it is a fully safe pistol. It'll only go bang when the trigger is pulled. Now, could it have additional safeties as well? Like a trigger block? There's varying opinions I guess and that could be personal preference.
Absolutely, 92 rocks!
Get a Langdon Tactical Trigger Job in a Bag on a G-Series Model 92 and it *IS* something special.
I repeatedly qualified with the M1911 during my army years. Afterwards, I repeatedly qualified with the M9 as nuclear security. The idea that the M1911 recoils so much more simply isn't true. IMHO, why it was more difficult to qualify with the M1911 may be that those army pistols were old and built to very loose tolerances in the first place. I distinctly remember one instance where I shot at a silhouette target at almost point blank range and missed. My pistol rattled like a castinet when shaken. I was told they were made this way to enable dust grit to fall loose and not jam the pistol.
That is not what the Army found over the years. Also law enforcement. Many agencies who chose 45 have switched over to or back to 9mm. More advanced shooters have no issue. But lowest common denominator, they perform better with 9mm. That thing called NATO standardization is a real thing as well although the US violates an a norm.
I have both and the m9a4. In my opinion the m9s are much higher quality.
The question is, is there any gun lower quality than M17/M18?
@@ZeroGA Hi Point 😳😳😳😮
@@chrischiampo7647 No, a SCCY.
@@ZeroG zip 22?
Sig bid low and won. We lost. I'm not saying that it's a complete piece of junk. I'm saying we could have gotten much better. Same deal with the MCX Spear-based XM-7. What are they thinking? In a decade, the Army will be looking for do-overs for both.
idk, the textronics had the most interesting ammo, and the GD bid just doesent look like a good fighting rifle. it's also not all that accurate. the sig works, it's a fine rifle. if the textronics was a bit more sanely built i might have preferred it.
Bet the xm-7 hangs around about as long as the m14 did. There's a reason battle rifles aren't really a thing anymore. Rather see the m4/16 rechambered in a round that you can carry just as much of.
I'd say a pistol that isn't drop safe is junk.
The spear will be a historical curiosity
@@sillybilly121212 I was reading through a long list of comments and saw this without remembering the context. I thought by "spear" you mean a pointy thing at the end of a long stick and was about to disagree with you, hah. I don't think you're wrong.
I recently saw one of these sig m17 military overrun models in one of my local gun shops. It was sitting on display with the slide slightly out of battery. It looked quite embarrassing tbh.
Because the slide was lowered slowly. When loading the pistol properly and under live fire, this doesn’t happen.
This is quite the lame stretch to have an excuse to dislike an M17 lol
@@levimaliwauki8 Yep, the military M17s/M18s have a tighter barrel fit in order to further help meet the new MHS Army requirements. If the slide is lowered by hand slowly or maybe during extreme limp wristing, it may stay a few mms out of battery. We have had military issues M17s/M18s at our FFL and every time the slide is released properly using the slide stop lever, it chambers and goes forward 100% and we have yet to see an issue. You need to look at how some of these newbie soldiers are firing those handguns and we then see where the problem lays.
I don't care what anyone says. Sig Arms/Sig Sauer has never been the same since they divested themselves of their German/Swiss origins.
Back when I served, the 9x19mm NATO was listed as having a muzzle velocity of 395 m/s at a bullet weight of 7.5 gram out of a 4 inch barrel. That's a 115 grain bullet exiting the muzzle at 1295 fps. So easily +P+, and given these figures, the Beretta 92 would perform oustandingly well for thousands of rounds. You have already mentioned the aftermarket magazine controversy. No doubt the Beretta was an excellent choice back then.
Thats not +p+ just +p. The 9mm nato I've shot has all been 124gr at 1200 fps. Fired out of a S&W M&P 2.0 5 in barrel.
@@rockmusicman21Underwood +P+ JHP. 115 gr, 1300 fps. So yes, the specs I listed ARE +P+
@@Atombender interesting. I was using Winchester. I was under the assumption that is what the us army was using before the sig contract
@@rockmusicman21 Magtechs 124gr "NATO" load is rated with 1329fps! That is +p+!
@@Gieszkanne yikes. I wouldn't want to shoot that stuff on a regular basis. Sounds like some of the 9mm ammo from Europe that was meant only for sub machine guns and was loaded super hot.
I’ve carried both Sigs and Glocks as duty weapons. The Sig was trash, the Glock was a durable, reliable pistol that I never had an issue with!
For the average infantryman, a 9mm pistol is a 9mm pistol. This project was a colossal waste of money.
I wonder if something like Taurus G3 could have won the contract. They are super cheap but quite reliable guns.
As much as I am a Sig fan boy, they should have not won the contract if Phase 2 testing was not done. I want our soldiers to have the BEST equipment, not the cheapest.
Te best gun on that table is objectively and unquestionably the Sig 226. If the military had bought the 226 back in 1985, it would still be using it and wouldn't be replacing it for another 50 years.
I highly doubt it. Not because the M9 is worse than the 226, but simply because it is a pistol used in military service.
I didn't serve, but it is obvious from the stories told that the US military do an absolute piss poor job in maintaining their stock of pistols. If you never replace springs in any design, like was common with the M9 having the orginal magazines and recoil springs after 40 years of service, the pistols will be absolutely worn out.
Don't pretend the 226 would be any different, because it wouldn't. So, put the fanboyism aside a moment and think rationally.
The 320 is just an awful design from the get go, so we're seeing those issues sooner.
Not a problem of quality, but logicistcal support
I've owned and used many handguns for the past 4 decades. The P Series (P226, P229) have been the most shot and most reliable guns I've ever owned. I started with P220 in 1984 and still have my 1987 P226 along with 3 others, 2 P229s. I have 92X and many Glocks, I carried a 19 for a couple of years.
I have compact guns by nearly every makers and use them. The only guns I own that hav3 been as reliable as the P Series are HK P30 and CZ P-07. But I have far fewer rounds through those, carried P-07 for a couple years as well. I've carried P226 & P229 and shot them for decades.
I'm not a fan boys of any maker, I dislike P320s and own only 1, the AXG Legion version given to me by a customer at the LGS I worked at for 5 years. I do appreciate Sig for innovation and wish they'd redesign the 320, ground up. They won't.
Their P365 lineup has changed the industry for the better. My current EDC is either Macro w/no WML or P365 AXG w/WML depending on being on my feet all day and out at night. Both have EPS Carry on them. P229 Legion w/ TLR 1 and SCS in Tier 1 MSP in winter (short in TX). And I carry P365X or G42 in a pocket holster when shorts/t-shirt days off come around.
Everyone likes what they like for reasons. My reasons are all based on actual use over decades of carry, practice, training, owning. If I every find something better, I'll change to it and test it, not take anyone's word for it. Fanboy? Yes, of platforms that works, based on experience, not of brands by name. I buy and try them all.
To me the real game changer is the Norlite USK-G made for Glock.
The real modularity advantage is that.
The possibility to convert quickly multiple guns into small tactical carbines or into SMGs eventually integrally suppressed for use.
So: Mags same, ammos same, dynamic shooting exercises with the convenience of a cheap ammo and simplified loading and cocking procedures for cadets...
Army enjoy a multipurpose use for their pistols while not having logistic issues for munitioning. Again, the same basic pistol can be task oriented. A regular pistol side arm for duty service can became a small carbine or SMG with accessories while patrolling and non first line personnel. Since a stocked carbine is way more effective by low trained personnel than a naked pistol.
Moreover , most of the times 9*19mm is the point of the spear. It is used by intruders in urban environment, and in operations "on board" on boats ships so forth because 9*19 reduces collateral damages to fellows lads in such closed operational environments.
Thank you, Chris. I always appreciate your up-front and no-nonsense approach to this stuff. Lots of inside information that many of us don't know. Much appreciated, Sir.
They should have just kept the existing M9 or adopted the M9A3 without consideration of another platform. Just a solid, accurate, dependable sidearm that is a pleasure to shoot. I own a 92FS with the M9's trigger and guide rod and a D spring and skeletonized hammer and it's everything a M9 should be, improved DA trigger feel and a good overall 2-stage feel for a military-issued combat pistol. The US military once again substituted hardware for doctrine and training, we as soldiers didn't need another pistol, we need range time and consistent marksmanship training opportunities.
Thanks for reviewing the new M17/M18 service pistol against the older M9 pistol.
I purchased a 92SB when I was in Berlin during '82 or '83 after Soldier of Fortune predicted that Beretta would win the contract. I qualified sharpshooter with the M1911A1 at Fort Riley and while on a security contract in Kuwait I shot a dozen 100% scores with agency-issue M9 pistols over a five-year period to Army standards. I have no experience with either the M17 or M18 but I have seen them in the holsters of Air Force Security Police and Army Military Police at local bases over the last three years. Initially the M9 was distrusted, especially the 9mm NATO cartridge. There were teething issues and when the Army went cheap on magazines during GWOT malfunctions became a headache. I was the agency armorer on the Kuwait contract and the M9 pistols and other weapons had few malfunctions because I made magazine maintenance a project. Once a month I would pull magazines from daily service, all 450 of them, and dump accumulated sand out of them, check the feed lips against a gauge, look for dents and bad magazine springs. I did the same for the M16A2 rifles on contract, all 600 magazines--there was initially some criticism but the guns worked. I think I made believers out of management when I showed them the bucket of sand I had collected from all loaded magazines on hand.
All military and police firearms have issues when first introduced. Some are design flaws--Smith and Wesson's Victory Model was modified when a sailor dropped his revolver and died when it went off. Some are QC problems. Then there's personnel training. Most of the security officers on that Kuwaiti security contract had been trained with revolvers and a 15-shot semiautomatic pistol was something new--then there were the military folks who had .45 experience (though most of the military were very familiar with the M16A2 and didn't know handguns, the police were revolver-savvy and might know semiautomatic pistols but the M16A2 was new for them). One issue with the Beretta was inadvertently moving the safety to SAFE when drawing (we were required to carry with chamber empty) and as their trainer I drilled them to always flip the safety up to FIRE as part of drawing the pistol. It will be interesting to see what training shortcomings the M17/M18 have and how those are worked around. The contract did have four M11 pistols issued to a VIP security contract--those SIG pistols were nice but they were as thick as the M9, only a little shorter in slide and height.
That's why I appreciate your video.
Watched this video again. It was superbly done!!! I too am a fan of the beretta 92 FS. I was issued a brand new one in 1990 and was able to buy it from my employer when I recently retired. I carried it for about 20 years during that time and absolutely loved it. It handled deserts, mountains and urban settings during my tenure with a very large LE department. It never failed.
On lowest bidder: that term is thrown around like crazy and i always ask people "whats the alternative? Isnt that what bidding is for? You have a few options that meet the requirements, why is the less expensive of those a bad thing" ? And people just never have an answer. I ask them if the US should just accept the highest bid but no one seems to like that option.
For everybody referring to .45ACP having superior knockdown power.... learn basic physics. KE(Kinetic Energy) is a function of mass and velocity. A lighter bullet at higher velocity can have the same KE as a heavier bullet with a slower velocity. Both 9X19 and .45ACP have nearly identical KE. Pistols are secondary weapons. Compared to a rifle they are pathetic. Even a 10mm or a .357 Magnum has less than half of the energy of a 5.56mm rifle round out of a 16" barrel. The most powerful handguns might hit close to that (.44 Magnum/.500 Magnum) but they are unusable in a serious engagement. The pistol is a last resort to get you to your rifle.
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ballistic effectiveness isn't as simple as 'calculate the energy'. Even if it were, that would make 45 slightly better than 9mm because 45, on average, has more energy than 9mm. But again, it's not that simple. Also, by the same logic that would make 5.7 just pretty much as effective as 9mm, but I'm sure you don't think that.
True kinetic energy is .5mvv ( no superscript) but momentum is just mv so there is an argument to be had. Personally I prefer the 9mm because there is less recoil and I want to hit the target.
It shows you pistols are mostly all on the same playing field with performance. No magic caliber. The deciding factor is shot placement or how many holes you poke for the target to bleed out.
I am a huge fan of lighter, faster, which is why I carry 38 Super and 357 Sig, usually 115gr instead of 124/125gr. Another factor is because the conventions have never been updated, the military is limited to ball (as mentioned). There's almost no reason to increase KE when that just translates to more energy on the bullet in a pass through, or negligible difference on strike to a plate. When dealing with ball ammo, they'd almost be better off with 380 ACP, where they could carry more ammo for the same weight.
M9 is much better
To answer the question in the video title: no. Owned all of them, the only one I no longer own, the stinking 320. The spongy trigger was so vague, you never knew when it would break.
When I was in the sheriff's department, around 2015, we carried the P320, personally I love it. One thing that the firearms instructors told us is that the slide lock is not a slide release. You have to release the slide by hand.
Having been issued an M19 in two conflicts I'll keep the M17 EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I had my friends, cop friend got shot in the leg with a Holstered Sig 320 . Closing his Car Door, door hit his Holster, Sig Discharged into his Left leg. Wicked BS!
The M9 double and single action accuracy is all a matter of training, a shooter needs to practice the double action shot several times then the single action shots, then combine to two, once a shooter practices this a few times the accuracy in both shooting modes improves dramatically. I carried a bunch of different firearms for a duty weapon as a Deputy sheriff, in revolvers my favorite was the Smith and Wesson 686 4" .357 magnum, and in semiautomatics the Beretta 92/M9A1 through M9A4 (G), both were very reliable and durable, and always went bang when I needed it to, and the round hit where I aimed it.
THANK YOU for coming back to this!
Should have just bought the new version of the M9. At least it doesn’t go off in your holster.
I am a fan of the M-9. However, I believe the greatest problem is with hand size. I'm a guy and have thick but maybe a little shorter than average fingers and hands. The M-9 fits my hand and fingers, but with nothing to spare. I think it was introduced at a time before women served in combat roles in the military. It would be a challenge for those with smaller hands.
Missing some context here on the 1911. The 1911 was a perfectly safe pistol for military use from its introduction until 1985. The inertial firing pin wa not the only protection, but it DID prevent ADs if the pistol was dropped on sod or dirt. Testing proved it. Early on, 1911 pistols were equipped with lanyards to prevent accidental drops on hard surfaces such as floors or decks. . After that, US doctrine was to carry the pistol in Condition 3 unless the need to fire was imminent, which was almost always when the user was in a fixed defensive position. By WW2, horse cavalry was gone and the US no longer viewed the 1911 as an offensive arm to be carried on the run. The Navy and Marines used lanyards until after the Korean War, and carried Condition 3 from WW2 onwards. So, the 1911 WAS a perfectly safe pistol in military use.
My context is correct. The military issue M1911 never had a firing pin safety. Typical US military and engineering improved, the Army lagged behind. The M1911 as issues, was unsafe to carry loaded in any condition. Testing did not show it was safe upon dropping. Anyone can see this for themselves dropping it on its muzzle from 4 to 5 feet out lower being aggressively dropped on the muzzle. The Series-80 Colt’s with the firing pin safety remedied that but the Army never adopted it.
OK, then (very respectfully) please tell me, because I really would like to know:
1. How a 1911 can possibly discharge from an impact fall while physically attached to a lanyard;
2. How a 1911 can possibly fire when dropped as you state when in Condition 3 with an empty chamber which was the standard carry method from adoption through 1985;
3. where I can find any record of any testing of a loaded military 1911 with issue springs and firing pin that discharged when dropped 3 to 5 feet onto sod or earth.
Lanyards are not standard. But the muzzle striking a hard surface, the inertia from the firing pin is enough to set off the cartridge . Of course the pistol wont fire without a round in the chamber! The M9 can be carried safely in any condition LOADED. I stated dropped on a hard surface. I testified as an expert in court on this important Federal Court in Milwaukee of a M1911 discharged when dropped on concrete. Repeatable. Love your M1911 as you will. These are cold hard facts. Nobody carries condition 3 in a combat zone just like no police officer would. In an emergency, you will not have time to rack the slide. Your entire argument is based off the gun is safe when being carried empty??? You win!
Short answer: No.
Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO--
They should have followed the lead of the US Special Ops community, the British military, and the French military and got the Glock 19 & Glock 17.
Nah. HK USP.
Agreed. No one is getting kills with M17, just Glocks lately.
@@CountryRacing186, it’s the person not the pistol.
Looking at the other MHS entrants, the M&P 2.0 and APX would have been better. Hell the APX is fully modular and everything
All the pistols you mentioned failed phase 1 for the MHS program so i guess they are not better
I joined the USMC in 1987 as an MP. Back then we were still carrying the 1911. We carried them without a round in the chamber and five rounds in the magazine to keep from stressing the magazine springs. The guns were so old that they were always breaking. Around 1988 we started carrying the Beretta. They worked flawlessly and I never had a malfunction. In 1996 I joined the LAPD and was issued a Beretta 92FS. I carried it for the first few years on before transitioning to the Beretta 8045. My 92FS was flawless and I only suffered one operator induced feeding malfunction. Yes, I heard about the slide cracking problem and also started reading online posts about complaints with the Beretta in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks for clearing up these misconceptions. I'm retired now and bought my academy issue Beretta from the LAPD for a whopping $230 something. Although I rarely fire it now (I carry a Smith 3913 for CCW), I'd still trust my life with my Beretta to this day.
Several years ago I recall being one of the few in my various units defending the M9s….. after numerous issues ranging from slide lock failures to light strikes and failures to return fully to battery it’s amazing how many other people miss the M9 now also…
Also, adding in (when compared to the 92FS) the multitude of various surfaces despised to powder fouling in the top of the frame and the narrow/hard to clean slide rails in the slide, it really does seem like a step backwards for user level maintenance. And then figure in dirty government ammo on top of that…
If you asked anyone in uniform what pistol they wanted, the vast majority favored the Glock. We already had thousands of them in inventory since Desert Storm.
This crazy idea we would go to a 40 or 45 never would die. They wanted their 40, which is why we got the Sig, even though everyone knew it would never happen. The 9mm wasn't going anywhere after that 2007 Army small arms study that determined shot placement really was what mattered. 🤠
Since when did hitting the target become a thing? Who knew?😀
I'd personally have the Beretta. The sear engagement/drop safety on the P320 in general gives me pause. I wouldn't carry it if given a choice, but in most cases it'll probably be ok for our troops. Probably. Good video.
Agreed. The sear is just not retained strongly enough for me for a modern firearm. It’s about their first striker fired weapon (I am no expert) and they rushed it. Our military mostly carries with an empty chamber, and the military models have a manual safety, so it will probably be ok in their hands. If I were a police chief I would find something else.
Another thing in SiGs favor for the MHS program that I think you missed here is that SiG already had the production line set up for the M17. The M9 inventory was on its last legs and the Army wanted a replacement quick, fast, and in a hurry. A new M17, warts and all in a soldiers hand is better than a worn out M9 that might not even be safe to fire anymore. I was in a tank unit when the MHS program started. Our M9s were in terrible shape and beat to shit. I'd have gladly taken an M17 with a safety warning label on it over the M9 I I couldn't release a magazine from. Especially after seeing one experience a chamber failure in OSUT. I agree they should have gone through further testing but I just wanted to mention that particular detail for context.
“Corrupt government officials act corruptly. More news at 11”
Berretta should’ve been allowed to upgrade the inventory of m9’s. M9a3/a4 would have been a huge improvement to an already extremely reliable and proven pistol. There was definitely some foul play when it came to the adoption of the m17/18 and that’s coming from someone who owns and likes my m18. Also owning an m9a4 I know which i would believe to be superior and that’s absolutely the Beretta
The criteria for the MHS program was fraudulent as well They stated they wanted a round more effective than the 9mm, more effective on armor. Sounds Ike the 5.7x28? So they got the program authorized only to adopt another 9mm pistol.
@@SmallArmsSolutions yea if armor were a concern I would definitely want a 5.7 over a 9mm. But even then most countries that are near pear to the U.S. are using ceramic plates at levels even rifle rounds have a hard time defeating! Honestly it’s really sad how blatant the government cares more about money and benefits rather then taking care of our men and women in uniform. Great video by the way your very informative and it’s always an interesting watch when you upload.
There's no good reason to stick with DA/SA. Outside certain elite units, military pistol training is already bad enough without having to train noobs on how to fire effectively with two different trigger pulls.
It almost sounds like a few people got paid off.
Oddly, when i speak to trauma doctors, they all tell me that 9 mm shooting "victims" are generally more likely to live, while 45 acp shooting "victims" are generally dead or less likely to survive... One famously quoted by Sgt 1911 said rarely have i lost a patient to 9 mm, but I've only saved 1 from 45 acp... This was an actual trauma surgeon. And I've personally spoken to several trauma surgeons personally, who generally agree.
That bullshit. That is not real. Trauma surgeon cannot tell the difference in ball round wounds. This is an old wives tale that keeps circling around what the actual reality is. There are no study’s that show this to be true nor are the physics. Key is solely shot placement. The 9mm, .40 and 45 Auto are all comparable in the wounds thy leave. Hollow points can be a game changer but the 9mm will penetrate deeper due to its velocity. These FMJ rounds just poke holes and destroy little tissue. I worked with forensic pathologists as well as trauma surgeons where we deal with fact, not superstition.
When I was a boy we used to say the General Motors did their road testing on their customers.Seems that often our government does the same to its soldiers.
The Sig Sauer P250, didn't have any of these problems. Maybe that system over the 320's?
The question is
How does it make you feel to know that the cheapest bidder is what you are putting your life on the line with!
Yep. That's business.
As long as all the weapons meet the specifications like the Beretta vs Sig, yes. Not the case of the MHS program. Not when the testing is skipped
@@SmallArmsSolutions Completely agree testing should be a must, but your comment was that they stopped at round one, they felt good about the pricing
paying 50% more for a gun you cant decisively say either way is a better gun doesent make too much sense. even if the sig is the worse option its not by all that much, most modern duty guns would do the job fine.
@@ravener96a gun that doesn't shoot you if you drop it under stress is preferable to one that does.
Great Video, thanks for making this. I learned valuable information.
I could listen to Chris roll facts out straight from his dome all day. Dude has SO much knowledge its just incredible. Amazing video as always! Thank you.