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.
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.
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.
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.
$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 !!! )))
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.
@@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.
Check out the French Army "P250" trials, if you want to see endurance/durability/reliability testing data on the P320. What became known later as the P320 came runner-up. Sig-Sauer's P250 _is named_ P250 because _it won._
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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!
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.
@@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.
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.
The problem with seeing sights come off is concerning especially when the M17 has done nothing but sit in the sponson box. What the main concern of this is if they can't get the sights right what else did they screw up
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.
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.
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.
At my department we are going from G23 to P320, i don’t understand but the main reason was money, that is what sig are doing now under bidding everyone and by no mean Sig is a bad gun, I own two, but I rather have a Glock than i know it will work all the time.
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.
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 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.
@@Rubeless 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
"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.
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?
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.
@baileyparadis1815 That's how I few it. But these are current issue to me and in service with the force doing this. Especially right out of the packing grease guns. The issue is always this even if you put about 200rds through it or more if your lucky.
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 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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
Reading your comment about the break in lube; the FN reflex I have has the same issue. Lube the crap out of it or it starts hanging up and have to bump into battery. It’s only got about 500-600rounds through it, soI'll see if it smoothes out. The issue usually starts around 160 rounds for the reflex after cleaning.
@@craigthescott5074 It was initally designed as a 9mm but the Military overruled that then went back on their rulings with the Beretta so the 1911 proved nothing.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
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.
I'm calling BS on your commitment about the 1911A/1. I've carried it loaded. The safety locks the slide and hammer in place. Additionally, don't cry about recoil. During WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, soldiers were trained to shoot it one hand. No one cried about it. I carried it myself, no issues. Would i preferred more ammunition? Well, there's the Browning Hi Power. The entire premise of the .45 cal is the stopping power that the 9mm doesn't have. Mind you, I'm referring to standard military ammunition, NOT hollow points.
You carrying loaded is very different from the Army service pistol. You like it, good for you! Your personal needs are quite different from the needs a military. You also have no idea about ballistics or terminal performance.
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
@@MrSolLeksDo research into manufacturing before talking about quality. Glock makes all their own tooling including the tool holders in house, they do metallurgical evaluations on every batch of steel that comes in to the Austrian plant before shipping that same steel to the Georgia plant. Glock is extremely picky when it comes too making their guns. The Glock to this day is still by far the lowest part number military pistol ever.
@@MediiiiccNo. They wouldn't. Glock has military and LE contracts everywhere. CIA GRS, Secret service, fbi hrt, several western militaries, seals, etc all chose the Glock over all. And yet you can still snag a 19x for around 600 ish dollars with metal night sights and 3 mags.
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.
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.
The requirement of double-action in the M9 competition doesn't make much sense to me for a military pistol, because the only time double action is needed is to get a second primer strike on a failure-to-fire. Otherwise, you're chambering a round because the military says the chamber is empty, so you either have striker-fire or you are going to chamber, and that will cock the hammer! Now imagine one of Beretta's M9A4-based single-action competition guns as a service pistol!
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.
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…
I was an armorer at parris island around 2010. I saw at least two m9 slides break. One broke completely in half during firing the other only one side broke. Neither hurt the shooter but they still broke. And locking blocks breaking was very common. Next most common problem i remember (other than shooter error) was the pin that held in the firing pin block lever and the decocker lever would walk out. And because its only held in by staked aluminum it usually wrecked the frame to the point that the whole pistol had to be replaced. There where other thaings that broke but they where less serious or easier to fix. I hated the grip and the safety is by far the worst pistol safety I've ever used ( ergonomically, it worked fine) but the m9 was pretty accurate and reliable. Im sure part of the problems i saw where because those pistols had insane round counts and they just kept getting reissued every time a new group of marines needed to qual.
Your armory had very poor maintenance schedule. Slides should have been replaced with high round counts. Properly staked that pin should never walked out. Most of the time when poorly trained armorers replace that pin they do not stake it or do it improperly. Properly trained armorers can ID a locking block failure long before by noticing the pitting on the left lug. We are also talking about guns well past 10K rounds, closest to 5 to 17K rounds. The military’s poor logistical system and poor procurement of proper replacement components have caused problems with every US service weapon. No matter what system they adopt in the future, in 10 years, they will be complaining the weapons are deficient. SOCOM does a slight better job than Aniston. Marines, no clue how their armorers are. But the Marines tend to have the same problems. None of these weapons last forever. But many armorers keep weapons in service until they stop shooting straight or until they have catastrophic failures such as locking block failures, broken slides, broken extractors, broken bolts…….
It was not feasible to keep a round count on everything in the Armory. So I'm just guessing that the failures where from a high round count. And we had no down time. Parts only got replaced if they where broken, obviously worn or failed gauging. We did not have the time or parts to just replace things that where not broken. As for the pin that held in the two levers. Usually the firing pin block lever would break, (causing a permanent failure to fire) the only way to replace it is the knock that pin out. Which breaks the stake. Once the parts where replaced we would attempt to restake it but there isn't much room to do that it being in the slide rail. So you got like one restake attempt before you ran out of room and couldn't try again. Sometimes it would hold Sometimes it wouldn't. And Usually this repair is done at the range when a staff nco or officer is waiting on you. Not every armorer is great at thier job I admit. My whole point to that pin problem was that it is a bad design. If it does fail its easy to scrap a serial number.
It is an excellent design. All our issue weapons are. They work well till they get worn. But if parts are not replaced they will break. Every weapon will do this. I have trained many armorers overseas for many foreign military and LE personnel. We train what to look for. You have warning for most parts nearing the end of their service life. Any weapon you get will eventually brake, Is that a bad design or becasue it was not maintained? How old were your pistols? They have been around since 85. You have a 20 year old pistol maybe with go knows how many rounds? Im just saying is everything will break. We have preventative maintenance schedules. Most that work is done at Aniston Depot. Replacing broken parts is not preventative maintenance, it’s replacing worn parts so the gun does not break. This could also show some of the lack of training in PM as well.
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.
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.
You can really see how much of the felt recoil comes straight back into the shooters hand in the slow motion footage compared to something like a Glock or anything with a tilting barrel mechanism. My absolute baby is my CZ SP01 manual safety and watching the slow motion of the Beretta it becomes rather obvious that the Beretta is also a real sweet shooting gun I truly believe there isn't a flatter shooting gun than a fully decked out CZ shadow 1/CZ SP01 or shadow 2
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.
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.
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.
Very authoritative! I have an Italian-made 92FS and it is far and away my favorite pistol (a Springfield 'mil-spec' 1911 is a close 2nd). The 92 is an outstanding handgun for military service and civilian self defense; extraordinarily reliable and capable of superb accuracy (if well-handled). The people who like to diss on the 92 tend to be people who have either no experience with it at all and point to the gun's early teething troubles (which weren't even really the gun's fault, it was bad magazines, as you point out) or people who were in the military in the 2000s/2010s and only had experience with M9's that had been beat to shit and never given proper maintenance. Love your video for giving people an informative run down on the M9/92 without any B.S.----you earned yourself a subscriber!
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.
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.
@@Totttty55 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.
@@Totttty55 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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
I just wanna say as a Beretta 92FS enthusiast who believes to this day after trying many pistols, that it is by far the smoothest, most accurate, and best shooting 9mm handgun in existence. I was Very unhappy with how the Govt treated the M9 program. Thanks for sharing more information on this as well as the really cool shots at the end. And learning more about the differences in the 92FS and the M9 variants was a great plus! Also didn't know the SIg P226 had almost won. My Father's favorite handgun is his Sig P226. it's the only handgun I've shot that feels almost the same good as the Beretta 92. From what I know, if the US had tested phase 2 we'd have Glocks as our service pistol right now. I personally don't like the way Glocks handle, but have never had one fail on me (though I've had one for a while, gave it to my uncle. And then tried a newer generation recently as a rental and was impressed with the improvements they made.)
I think you make a very good point. There's something about the SIG/government relationship that smells funny to me. Ron Cohen is known for three things: cutting corners to reduce costs, focusing on brand and marketing to increase sales, and using weasel language to justify why the product not working doesn't actually matter and, if it does, then it isn't his company's fault.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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 worked at a gun shop/range for 6 years after I got out of the military and when these came about I cautioned people about buying them right away until SIG worked out all of the kinks which DID happen shortly after release. The Beretta was a solid shooter my only complaint was the grip which they did an awesome job fixing with the A3/A4 models. If the military wanted to change things up they had the opportunity to go with Glocks which had set the standard for a lightweight reliable pistol in military/LE/and civilian real world testing. Maybe cost was a factor but lets face it, someone got their pockets lined in order to push these pistols through. Either way this is why I tell people to DO THEIR HOMEWORK, before buying anything because at the end of the day just because the military uses it, or your buddy who is a cop says its good, well doesn't mean it's actually good to go...
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. 🤠
Good video. I was in the Marines for 20 years and never saw a type M9A1 pistol...it must have been specific units that I wasn't in that got them. Never had any problems with the Beretta...very reliable. The only complaint I heard was from women (for the most part) because the double stack mag results in a fairly wide grip, which made it uncomfortable for those with small hands. It is pretty scary if there wasn't any Phase 2 testing.
the main problem for me as a 19K M1 Armor Crewman for a decade wasn't so much that heavy brick of a pistol but the holster. In the early 90s we weren't issued that floppy green shoulder holster, we were still being issued the leather tanker's holster. Problem is, the leather tanker's holster was never designed for the M9 but the M1911. So upon being issued our M9s for field exercises or deployments we'd have to *jam* the pistol into the holsters to get them to fit. There was no quick or easy way of drawing those pistols but at least the pistol wasn't flopping around or getting in the way of us moving around on the tanks. Fast-forward to the Balkans in the late 90s and those green weenie should holsters were being issued but the problem with those were they were vertical shoulder holsters that sat under the arm and were always banging around, which is totally fine for MPs and Officers but complete garbage for armored crewmen and chopper pilots where cross-draw on the chest is near perfect. Also, I don't believe those green shoulder holsters were as fire-resistant like the old leather chest holsters were/are. They tended to melt. What Big Army should have done was gotten a new contract to have leather chest holsters made specifically for the M9, like can be found on the civilian market today. but they never did that, they just issue that horrid green shoulder holster to *everyone* who is issued an M9. For the the multiple years I was deployed to the Balkans we carried both the M9 and the M16A2. We'd use the M9 to clear houses and buildings because we tankers were being used as infantry by then thanks to SECDEF Cohen and President Clinton. And thanks to those two most of the time the springs and barrels were worn out and the entire pistol was "loose" and rattled a lot. If a pistol failed on the qualification range prior to deployment, the soldier was just issued a different one and no one really knew were the bad one went. Same for the M16A2 rifles we were issued. All of our rifles and pistols were worn-out rattle traps because our armorers could never get enough spare parts to keep the majority of them up-to-snuff. Parts were always "on order".
Not even saying this out of jealousy, Sig Sauer just sucks. They are a shell of their former selves. Granted the innovation and ideas are good but the outcome is garbage. The P365, P320, Rattler and Spear LT has been nothing short of failures. Even if they did get fixed, they shouldn’t have the issues that occurred. The P320 and the Spear LT however seem to keep on continuing to have problems though
I own the M18, M9, G19X, and several 1911s. I prefer the Beretta followed by the G19X. However, you didn’t address the night sights nor the ability to mount a red dot sight.
One of the reasons they switched to polymer is because it's lighter by ounces. They then adopt a new rifle/scope combo that's 4 POUNDS heavier than its predecessor.
Here in Spain our Guardia Civil (Sort of like a militarized police and highway patrol units at the same time) use the M9 (known as the F92 here) as their service pistol and they mostly love it, they even went as far as to complain and outright reject getting a "more modern" option. To me that definetely says something about the M9's great performance through the years.
@@WILD__MANN 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.
in afghan we called the m9 a bolt-action pistol. clean it all you want but after every single patrol dust is everywhere inside the weapon gumming up the action and rendering it manual-operation. that completely open action is a design flaw, not a feature.
How could that issue not be discovered during the environmental stress tests performed before adoption? And do you think this is an isolated issue that the open action performs poorly in dusty environments, or is it an issue outside of that as well?
Love the look of the M9 but did not expect them to be that reliable. I was able to hold a few when I was helping out with the armory. Definitely regret not being given a chance to shoot it. As the Army moved on from the m4 carbine to the SIG new rifle, I'm glad the Marine Corps adopted the m27. It's a damn good gun. I think we beat out the army in this one with the new m27 but only time will tell.
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!
After Desert Storm, The USMC asked all marines to provide feedback. The complaint was the M-9 was hard for marines with smaller hands to hold the M-9 and the other complaint was that the 9mm ball ammo did not have sufficient stopping power. The SIG is better for small hands. I own both and like both of them but I'd rather shoot my 1911.
Same round. There is not enough improvement in the M17 to warrant its adoption. Clearly it is inferior to the M9 in durability, reliability and safety. If they were to adopt a new cartridge, I would have agreed to a new pistol. Just my thoughts though.
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.
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.
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.
When the Beretta Model 92F was adopted as the M9, the Beretta Model 84F was also adopted as a companion for issue to C.I.D., plainclothes M.P.s, and females unable to hold the M9. Somehow that has been forgotten since 1987 . . . .
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.
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...
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 !!! )))
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.
Check out the French Army "P250" trials, if you want to see endurance/durability/reliability testing data on the P320. What became known later as the P320 came runner-up. Sig-Sauer's P250 _is named_ P250 because _it won._
@@davidgoodnow269 Do you mean the Sig Sp2022 maybe?
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.
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 😂
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.
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?
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.
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.
The problem with seeing sights come off is concerning especially when the M17 has done nothing but sit in the sponson box. What the main concern of this is if they can't get the sights right what else did they screw up
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.
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.
@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.
@bigboyentertainment944No.
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.
At my department we are going from G23 to P320, i don’t understand but the main reason was money, that is what sig are doing now under bidding everyone and by no mean Sig is a bad gun, I own two, but I rather have a Glock than i know it will work all the time.
Always a cop lol. I was reading that cops had problems with Glocks too when they were first adopted
@@mrdato116 well that makes sense since they used 6 shooters before that.
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, 👍
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 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.
@@Rubeless 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..."
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.
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?
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.
@baileyparadis1815 That's how I few it. But these are current issue to me and in service with the force doing this.
Especially right out of the packing grease guns. The issue is always this even if you put about 200rds through it or more if your lucky.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh man that M9 laying on that woodland camo is peak aesthetic
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reading your comment about the break in lube; the FN reflex I have has the same issue. Lube the crap out of it or it starts hanging up and have to bump into battery. It’s only got about 500-600rounds through it, soI'll see if it smoothes out. The issue usually starts around 160 rounds for the reflex after cleaning.
The M9 is a P38 more or less. They work perfectly with 80 years of experience and testing. No reason to change it other than for greedy purposes.
@@craigthescott5074 It was initally designed as a 9mm but the Military overruled that then went back on their rulings with the Beretta so the 1911 proved nothing.
@@craigthescott5074 You know a lot but most of it is unique to your ideas. Your department is also special.
My father was in the Jamaican Defense Force. May he Rest In Peace and thank you for the shoutout Chris. 👍🏿✊🏿🇺🇸🇯🇲
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.
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.
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.
>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.
And yet we still spent $1 billion on testing the MHHC for a COTS system before we even had a single gun.
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
The Sig Sauer won the M17, M18, and M5 rifle. We have a very rare pattern here 😮
Thanks greatly 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.
I'm calling BS on your commitment about the 1911A/1. I've carried it loaded. The safety locks the slide and hammer in place. Additionally, don't cry about recoil. During WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, soldiers were trained to shoot it one hand. No one cried about it. I carried it myself, no issues. Would i preferred more ammunition? Well, there's the Browning Hi Power. The entire premise of the .45 cal is the stopping power that the 9mm doesn't have. Mind you, I'm referring to standard military ammunition, NOT hollow points.
You carrying loaded is very different from the Army service pistol. You like it, good for you! Your personal needs are quite different from the needs a military. You also have no idea about ballistics or terminal performance.
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
@@MrSolLeksDo research into manufacturing before talking about quality. Glock makes all their own tooling including the tool holders in house, they do metallurgical evaluations on every batch of steel that comes in to the Austrian plant before shipping that same steel to the Georgia plant. Glock is extremely picky when it comes too making their guns. The Glock to this day is still by far the lowest part number military pistol ever.
@@MediiiiccNo. They wouldn't. Glock has military and LE contracts everywhere. CIA GRS, Secret service, fbi hrt, several western militaries, seals, etc all chose the Glock over all. And yet you can still snag a 19x for around 600 ish dollars with metal night sights and 3 mags.
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.
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.
@@BBC42618 the mortar fire was so inaccurate that it did not cause any casualties. The rounds mostly landed outside the base.
The requirement of double-action in the M9 competition doesn't make much sense to me for a military pistol, because the only time double action is needed is to get a second primer strike on a failure-to-fire. Otherwise, you're chambering a round because the military says the chamber is empty, so you either have striker-fire or you are going to chamber, and that will cock the hammer!
Now imagine one of Beretta's M9A4-based single-action competition guns as a service pistol!
You try the vertec grip?
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.
my late father in law would differ being a korean vet he said soldiers from canda would give anything for a 45
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…
Sticking with my 92, thank you lol
I was an armorer at parris island around 2010. I saw at least two m9 slides break. One broke completely in half during firing the other only one side broke. Neither hurt the shooter but they still broke. And locking blocks breaking was very common.
Next most common problem i remember (other than shooter error) was the pin that held in the firing pin block lever and the decocker lever would walk out. And because its only held in by staked aluminum it usually wrecked the frame to the point that the whole pistol had to be replaced. There where other thaings that broke but they where less serious or easier to fix.
I hated the grip and the safety is by far the worst pistol safety I've ever used ( ergonomically, it worked fine) but the m9 was pretty accurate and reliable. Im sure part of the problems i saw where because those pistols had insane round counts and they just kept getting reissued every time a new group of marines needed to qual.
Your armory had very poor maintenance schedule. Slides should have been replaced with high round counts. Properly staked that pin should never walked out. Most of the time when poorly trained armorers replace that pin they do not stake it or do it improperly. Properly trained armorers can ID a locking block failure long before by noticing the pitting on the left lug. We are also talking about guns well past 10K rounds, closest to 5 to 17K rounds. The military’s poor logistical system and poor procurement of proper replacement components have caused problems with every US service weapon. No matter what system they adopt in the future, in 10 years, they will be complaining the weapons are deficient. SOCOM does a slight better job than Aniston. Marines, no clue how their armorers are. But the Marines tend to have the same problems. None of these weapons last forever. But many armorers keep weapons in service until they stop shooting straight or until they have catastrophic failures such as locking block failures, broken slides, broken extractors, broken bolts…….
It was not feasible to keep a round count on everything in the Armory. So I'm just guessing that the failures where from a high round count. And we had no down time. Parts only got replaced if they where broken, obviously worn or failed gauging. We did not have the time or parts to just replace things that where not broken.
As for the pin that held in the two levers. Usually the firing pin block lever would break, (causing a permanent failure to fire) the only way to replace it is the knock that pin out. Which breaks the stake. Once the parts where replaced we would attempt to restake it but there isn't much room to do that it being in the slide rail. So you got like one restake attempt before you ran out of room and couldn't try again. Sometimes it would hold Sometimes it wouldn't. And Usually this repair is done at the range when a staff nco or officer is waiting on you. Not every armorer is great at thier job I admit.
My whole point to that pin problem was that it is a bad design. If it does fail its easy to scrap a serial number.
It is an excellent design. All our issue weapons are. They work well till they get worn. But if parts are not replaced they will break. Every weapon will do this. I have trained many armorers overseas for many foreign military and LE personnel. We train what to look for. You have warning for most parts nearing the end of their service life. Any weapon you get will eventually brake, Is that a bad design or becasue it was not maintained? How old were your pistols? They have been around since 85. You have a 20 year old pistol maybe with go knows how many rounds? Im just saying is everything will break. We have preventative maintenance schedules. Most that work is done at Aniston Depot. Replacing broken parts is not preventative maintenance, it’s replacing worn parts so the gun does not break. This could also show some of the lack of training in PM as well.
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.
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. 😂
You can really see how much of the felt recoil comes straight back into the shooters hand in the slow motion footage compared to something like a Glock or anything with a tilting barrel mechanism. My absolute baby is my CZ SP01 manual safety and watching the slow motion of the Beretta it becomes rather obvious that the Beretta is also a real sweet shooting gun I truly believe there isn't a flatter shooting gun than a fully decked out CZ shadow 1/CZ SP01 or shadow 2
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.
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.
@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.
@kevinallies1014You clearly didn't watch the video.
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.
Very authoritative! I have an Italian-made 92FS and it is far and away my favorite pistol (a Springfield 'mil-spec' 1911 is a close 2nd). The 92 is an outstanding handgun for military service and civilian self defense; extraordinarily reliable and capable of superb accuracy (if well-handled). The people who like to diss on the 92 tend to be people who have either no experience with it at all and point to the gun's early teething troubles (which weren't even really the gun's fault, it was bad magazines, as you point out) or people who were in the military in the 2000s/2010s and only had experience with M9's that had been beat to shit and never given proper maintenance. Love your video for giving people an informative run down on the M9/92 without any B.S.----you earned yourself a subscriber!
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.
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.
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,
@@Totttty55 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.
@@Totttty55 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.
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.
I wonder if something like Taurus G3 could have won the contract. They are super cheap but quite reliable guns.
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.
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.
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.
I love this channel.
It’s all about facts and science, not image and “operator” BS…so the exact opposite of Garand Douche
All the best to everyone
I just wanna say as a Beretta 92FS enthusiast who believes to this day after trying many pistols, that it is by far the smoothest, most accurate, and best shooting 9mm handgun in existence. I was Very unhappy with how the Govt treated the M9 program. Thanks for sharing more information on this as well as the really cool shots at the end. And learning more about the differences in the 92FS and the M9 variants was a great plus!
Also didn't know the SIg P226 had almost won. My Father's favorite handgun is his Sig P226. it's the only handgun I've shot that feels almost the same good as the Beretta 92.
From what I know, if the US had tested phase 2 we'd have Glocks as our service pistol right now. I personally don't like the way Glocks handle, but have never had one fail on me (though I've had one for a while, gave it to my uncle. And then tried a newer generation recently as a rental and was impressed with the improvements they made.)
I think you make a very good point. There's something about the SIG/government relationship that smells funny to me. Ron Cohen is known for three things: cutting corners to reduce costs, focusing on brand and marketing to increase sales, and using weasel language to justify why the product not working doesn't actually matter and, if it does, then it isn't his company's fault.
This video is so crisply informative and professional. Two thumbs up.
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.
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.
I carried the 92G as a Deputy Sheriff for years, other than the SW M19 that I carried earlier it was the finest partner I ever had!
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.
the aesthetics of the m9 just cant be beat.
The aesthetics are good, but I quite prefer the Beretta Modello 1951. Same action, better handling.
My wife is not a gun person but she saw a 92FS Inox in a movie and said it's so beautiful she has to have one
26:05 ejection is hypnotizing. I must now get a Beretta.
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 say this as a 1911/Hi Power guy......as far as I'm concerned, the Beretta 92/M9 is the SOLDIERS sidearm.
I worked at a gun shop/range for 6 years after I got out of the military and when these came about I cautioned people about buying them right away until SIG worked out all of the kinks which DID happen shortly after release. The Beretta was a solid shooter my only complaint was the grip which they did an awesome job fixing with the A3/A4 models. If the military wanted to change things up they had the opportunity to go with Glocks which had set the standard for a lightweight reliable pistol in military/LE/and civilian real world testing. Maybe cost was a factor but lets face it, someone got their pockets lined in order to push these pistols through. Either way this is why I tell people to DO THEIR HOMEWORK, before buying anything because at the end of the day just because the military uses it, or your buddy who is a cop says its good, well doesn't mean it's actually good to go...
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?😀
The Sig Sauer P250, didn't have any of these problems. Maybe that system over the 320's?
Good video. I was in the Marines for 20 years and never saw a type M9A1 pistol...it must have been specific units that I wasn't in that got them. Never had any problems with the Beretta...very reliable. The only complaint I heard was from women (for the most part) because the double stack mag results in a fairly wide grip, which made it uncomfortable for those with small hands. It is pretty scary if there wasn't any Phase 2 testing.
the main problem for me as a 19K M1 Armor Crewman for a decade wasn't so much that heavy brick of a pistol but the holster.
In the early 90s we weren't issued that floppy green shoulder holster, we were still being issued the leather tanker's holster.
Problem is, the leather tanker's holster was never designed for the M9 but the M1911. So upon being issued our M9s for field exercises or deployments we'd have to *jam* the pistol into the holsters to get them to fit. There was no quick or easy way of drawing those pistols but at least the pistol wasn't flopping around or getting in the way of us moving around on the tanks.
Fast-forward to the Balkans in the late 90s and those green weenie should holsters were being issued but the problem with those were they were vertical shoulder holsters that sat under the arm and were always banging around, which is totally fine for MPs and Officers but complete garbage for armored crewmen and chopper pilots where cross-draw on the chest is near perfect. Also, I don't believe those green shoulder holsters were as fire-resistant like the old leather chest holsters were/are. They tended to melt. What Big Army should have done was gotten a new contract to have leather chest holsters made specifically for the M9, like can be found on the civilian market today. but they never did that, they just issue that horrid green shoulder holster to *everyone* who is issued an M9.
For the the multiple years I was deployed to the Balkans we carried both the M9 and the M16A2. We'd use the M9 to clear houses and buildings because we tankers were being used as infantry by then thanks to SECDEF Cohen and President Clinton.
And thanks to those two most of the time the springs and barrels were worn out and the entire pistol was "loose" and rattled a lot. If a pistol failed on the qualification range prior to deployment, the soldier was just issued a different one and no one really knew were the bad one went. Same for the M16A2 rifles we were issued. All of our rifles and pistols were worn-out rattle traps because our armorers could never get enough spare parts to keep the majority of them up-to-snuff. Parts were always "on order".
Not even saying this out of jealousy, Sig Sauer just sucks. They are a shell of their former selves. Granted the innovation and ideas are good but the outcome is garbage. The P365, P320, Rattler and Spear LT has been nothing short of failures. Even if they did get fixed, they shouldn’t have the issues that occurred. The P320 and the Spear LT however seem to keep on continuing to have problems though
I don't care what people say , I love the M9. ,its a beautiful piece of metal.
I own the M18, M9, G19X, and several 1911s. I prefer the Beretta followed by the G19X. However, you didn’t address the night sights nor the ability to mount a red dot sight.
The M9 predated those options. The marines had a M9A1 that fit that requirement. My interest is more in the lack of proper procurement procedure.
One of the reasons they switched to polymer is because it's lighter by ounces. They then adopt a new rifle/scope combo that's 4 POUNDS heavier than its predecessor.
Here in Spain our Guardia Civil (Sort of like a militarized police and highway patrol units at the same time) use the M9 (known as the F92 here) as their service pistol and they mostly love it, they even went as far as to complain and outright reject getting a "more modern" option. To me that definetely says something about the M9's great performance through the years.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO--
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.
@@WILD__MANN 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.
Having been issued an M19 in two conflicts I'll keep the M17 EVERY SINGLE TIME.
in afghan we called the m9 a bolt-action pistol. clean it all you want but after every single patrol dust is everywhere inside the weapon gumming up the action and rendering it manual-operation. that completely open action is a design flaw, not a feature.
How could that issue not be discovered during the environmental stress tests performed before adoption? And do you think this is an isolated issue that the open action performs poorly in dusty environments, or is it an issue outside of that as well?
Love the look of the M9 but did not expect them to be that reliable. I was able to hold a few when I was helping out with the armory. Definitely regret not being given a chance to shoot it. As the Army moved on from the m4 carbine to the SIG new rifle, I'm glad the Marine Corps adopted the m27. It's a damn good gun. I think we beat out the army in this one with the new m27 but only time will tell.
M9 is much better
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!
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!
I've ben a gun guy my whole life and I still learn from these videos.
After Desert Storm, The USMC asked all marines to provide feedback. The complaint was the M-9 was hard for marines with smaller hands to hold the M-9 and the other complaint was that the 9mm ball ammo did not have sufficient stopping power. The SIG is better for small hands. I own both and like both of them but I'd rather shoot my 1911.
Same round. There is not enough improvement in the M17 to warrant its adoption. Clearly it is inferior to the M9 in durability, reliability and safety. If they were to adopt a new cartridge, I would have agreed to a new pistol. Just my thoughts though.
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.
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.
When the Beretta Model 92F was adopted as the M9, the Beretta Model 84F was also adopted as a companion for issue to C.I.D., plainclothes M.P.s, and females unable to hold the M9.
Somehow that has been forgotten since 1987 . . . .