View Full Version : Why Civilian Beretta M9s and 92s Work But Your Military Issued One Didn't
Mrgunsngear
03-13-16, 11:00
http://i.imgur.com/ic2EH2El.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2yAChQfl.jpg
One thing anyone who has been issued a M9 in the military and purchased one personally knows is that they don't seem like the same weapon. Sure the controls are the same but the feel, and often the performance, of the gun can be very different. I get a lot of questions related to this as I have quite a few different Beretta pistol reviews up so I wanted to explain why I believe this is.
1. Lack or parts replacement (generally the recoil spring but other parts as well).
2. Bad magazines. Particularly the parked Checkmate 15 rounder.
For some reason, there seems to also be a lack of destroying bad M9 mags as opposed to bad M4/16 mags which are regularly destroyed
3. Individual maintenance and training is often poor or non-existent. How often have you seen "cup and saucer" grips used by military members in photos...?
4. There are hundreds of thousands of highly worn M9s in the military. Over the decades they've just worn due to extended use.
A quick discussion of all the details on the points above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-mtgYhNl58
Primus Pilum
03-13-16, 12:34
100% ignorance.
There is/was NOTHING wrong with the M9, outside of some bad checkmate mags durring the WOT. You probably had non existent maintenance or guns that the units dicked up.
All those guns have been long replaced. Do basic maintenance to a M9 and it will last a very very long time.
Give little no training to armorers, and little to no pistol training to shooters, and it doesn't matter what gun you put in their hand.
So much urban myth its not even funny.
As someone who was issued multiple M9's and owns 3 different 92FS variants, my opinion is #2, #2, and #2.
OK, maybe a little #1, but mostly #2.
100% ignorance.
There is/was NOTHING wrong with the M9, outside of some bad checkmate mags durring the WOT. You probably had non existent maintenance or guns that the units dicked up.
All those guns have been long replaced. Do basic maintenance to a M9 and it will last a very very long time.
Give little no training to armorers, and little to no pistol training to shooters, and it doesn't matter what gun you put in their hand.
So much urban myth its not even funny.
Isn't that exactly what he wrote?
This is more of a big Army problem. They don't do preventative maintenance on small arms. They just shoot it until it breaks. Then they cannibalize and fix the broken gun with that part from another broken gun. So your "new" part may have tens of thousands of rounds on it already. This is a problem for more than just M9's. Big Army does this with rifles and others as well.
When I was in the Air Force our M9's shot great! I wasn't savvy enough back then to ask about PM schedule. Make all the golfing jokes you want - the USAF understands small arms and how to properly maintain and use them in my experience. And people I worked with who were in the white SOF community didn't have issues with their M9's that I saw or heard about. I can't speak to Marine/Navy small arms. Only worked with their helo crews now and then and the subject didn't come up around me.
Isn't that exactly what he wrote?
And exactly what he says in the video.
Defaultmp3
03-13-16, 15:09
Obligatory Disclosure: I'm one of Check-Mate Industries' sponsored shooters, which came about after agreeing to field test their 1911 and 92 magazines over a period of several years. The sponsorship was a nice gesture; I genuinely appreciate and prefer their magazines for my Beretta 92D and various 1911 regardless of the sponsorship.
Ok...over several years, I've had some detailed discussions with Check-Mate's partners over the 92 magazines-and I've been running 8 of the dry-film ones of varying vintages (2005, 2008, 2010) interchangeably for carry and for thousands of rounds. During this period I've had exactly one magazine issue: One of the magazines was slightly oversize towards the tube base; it would easily insert and flawlessly chamber cartridges, but would not drop free from the frame without manually pulling it out. Check-Mate found it to be slightly oversize, sent it through the sizing die, and returned it to me-where it's performed without any subsequent hiccups. All Check-Mate magazines have a lifetime warranty, and Check-Mate stands behind them.
DoD magazine issues: There are two: One, the original (up to late 2004) DoD specified phosphate finish, applied internally and externally; a crackle-type finish, its ridges trapped the fine talc-like sand/dust indegenous to Iraq and Afghanistan, precluding effective cartridge travel inside the magazine; and Two, allegedly insufficient spring tensility.
Regarding the original phosphate finish-it's essential to understand that it was a DoD CONTRACT MANDATED finish, not something Check-Mate chose willy-nilly on their own. DoD's original intention was that the phosphate coating, applied both externally and internally, would be ideal for corrosion prevention in temperate climates (which in fact all reports that I've come across indicates that it does). Obviously, that finish was a massive "fail" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Check-Mate, upon hearing reports of magazine issues in-theatre, actually imported some sand from the theater, analyzed the proble, and provided an alternative dry-film finish, whach was approved by DoD and massively injected into the suppky chain. Unfortunately, the PHOSPHATE coated magazines were not purged from the theatre-both magazine types were intermixed at the arms-room/unit level, according to my understanding. The dry-film magazines have performed superbly, and also have what I consider to be a advantageous hardened steel, low profile baseplate. At one point, Check-Mate offered DoD to refinish all stocke of the phosphate coated magazines with the dry-film finish, at a cost of .40 per magazine-DoD declined.
Another sidebar comment: Check-Mate was not chosen as the DoD M9 magazine contractor based on their being the lowest cost bid-their selection was based on their being adjudged by DoD a superior performer of previous contracts/products. A subsequent DoD contractor of 92 magazines, Airtronics, WAS reputedly selected primarily based on bid price; after a relatively brief period, the contract was re-let to Check-Mate.
Springs. I've personally had exactly zero problems with the sprigs in all of my Check-Mate 92 magazines. All of mine are their standard springs, save for one, which is an experimental stainless steel one that never made it into full production. I've kept several of my magazines loaded for months at a time. Again, zero issues encountered-and my magazines aren't exactly babyied in use. I do, however, initially and periodically disassemble them, clean them, apply Dry-Slide (a dry-film molydisulfide lubricant/anticorrosive) to the inside of the tubes, followers, baseplate inners and the springs. Tube/baseplate exteriors receive a protective coat of Weapon Shield. I STRONGLY suspect that the most significant issue inherent to springage is maltreatment at the operator level, with springs inappropriately/inadvertantly/carelessly stretched, and then re-inserted-such compromises the integrity of the tensility.
A simple protocol for Check-Mate magazines: Use the dry-film ones-which'll be any with a 2005 and later rollmarked date on the tube sides, (on one or both sides). Keep the tubes clean, and don't mangle the springs during maintenance. If there's insufficient spring tensility, REPLACE the spring-don't attempt a "field-expedient" stretch fix-it works, at best, only very. very temporarily, and then the spring quickly reverts to it's previously weakened state.
I've used Beretta, Beretta-produced MDS and Check-Mate magazines in my 92s. I prefer the Check-Mates. I also like the metal-baseplated Beretta magazines, and the MDS magazines (which seem to have consistantly produced with the aluminum baseplates). I've heard excellent reports regarding the Beretta PVD sand-displacing magazines (the OEM magazines with the USMC contract and commercial M9A1 pistols), benefitting from both the PVD finish and an internal strake which provides a "stand-off" space precluding sand inhibiting cartridge travel inside the magazine tube, but they're expensive, and the Check-Mate dry-film magazines seem to do the same job well at a significantly lower cost.
Source: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12358-Beretta-92-reliability&p=224223&viewfull=1#post224223
Primus Pilum
03-13-16, 16:08
Lol if price wasnt an issue then they would have continued to use factory m9 mags (mecgar). Price is,the,main driver in all contracting, especially small arms.
Straight Shooter
03-13-16, 16:20
I used an M9 in service, and much later owned one for many years and many thousands of rounds of 100% trouble free use. They are great guns. I dont say they are/are not the best for military service...I liked them... but the gun itself it victim of internet rumors and lies by people who generally don't know what the hell they are talking about. I find them to be more demonstrably more accurate than Glocks and my examples, just as reliable.
Run an 18lb. recoil spring, keep a couple spare trigger springs and a locking block if your gonna shoot HIGH volumes of ammo..and use factory mags, and let her rip. Id still have and carry mine if I hadn't decided to go strictly all Glock for my defense guns several years ago. And that isn't a reflection on the Beretta, I like Glocks too.
MountainRaven
03-13-16, 16:32
This is more of a big Army problem. They don't do preventative maintenance on small arms. They just shoot it until it breaks. Then they cannibalize and fix the broken gun with that part from another broken gun. So your "new" part may have tens of thousands of rounds on it already. This is a problem for more than just M9's. Big Army does this with rifles and others as well.
When I was in the Air Force our M9's shot great! I wasn't savvy enough back then to ask about PM schedule. Make all the golfing jokes you want - the USAF understands small arms and how to properly maintain and use them in my experience. And people I worked with who were in the white SOF community didn't have issues with their M9's that I saw or heard about. I can't speak to Marine/Navy small arms. Only worked with their helo crews now and then and the subject didn't come up around me.
I wonder if this is a result of culture.
The Air Force's culture, afterall, is going to be derived from aircraft and aircraft maintenance. Keeping an aircraft flying requires that you follow PM to the tee, because if you don't people who are very expensive to train (like pilots) die and very expensive equipment (like aircraft) get destroyed. Never mind the nukes that the Air Force is responsible for.
So given the anal retentive nature that it seems that the Air Force should have toward maintaining their highest priority assets (aircraft and nukes), it seems that it would only be logical to carry that anal retentiveness toward maintenance down the line to small arms. Kind of like how, IIRC, all officers on board SSBNs are supposed to be nuclear engineers and aircraft carriers have traditionally been commanded by former naval aviators.
I wonder if this is a result of culture.
The Air Force's culture, afterall, is going to be derived from aircraft and aircraft maintenance. Keeping an aircraft flying requires that you follow PM to the tee, because if you don't people who are very expensive to train (like pilots) die and very expensive equipment (like aircraft) get destroyed. Never mind the nukes that the Air Force is responsible for.
So given the anal retentive nature that it seems that the Air Force should have toward maintaining their highest priority assets (aircraft and nukes), it seems that it would only be logical to carry that anal retentiveness toward maintenance down the line to small arms. Kind of like how, IIRC, all officers on board SSBNs are supposed to be nuclear engineers and aircraft carriers have traditionally been commanded by former naval aviators.
The Air Force has not prioritized nucs in a long time.
The nuclear surety community use to jokingly say the AF attitude about Nukes was controlled by those who failed out of flight school, guarded by those not smart enough to do anything else.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wonder if this is a result of culture.
The M9 23&P manual covers all services. If there is any difference I'd say the AF maybe doesn't shoot them as much as some other services. Or maybe they didn't have many worn out mags to replace when the junk checkmate's were being issued.
Checkmate mags were the only problem I ever saw with the M9.
My Department issues the 92D. I can shoot that gun better than anything else on the market, but it was not w/o a lot of practice. The trigger is smooth but very long. You have to be able to control it, and know when a hasty press vs a dedicated smooth pull is needed based on the circumstances downrange.
My issue with the issued pistol isn't in its type; its with the lack of maintenance at the armory level. I've had it for 10 years now, and it was used when I got it. Not one single spring replacement by the armory.
Legend has it we'll be transitioning to a different handgun, and we'll have the option to buy our issued ones. My first reaction was f*** no, but I really wonder what would happen if I could send it out to Wilson Combat for the full treatment...
Lol if price wasnt an issue then they would have continued to use factory m9 mags (mecgar). Price is,the,main driver in all contracting, especially small arms.
Mec-Gar does not make Beretta OE mags. Beretta owned MDS (Meccanica del Sarca) makes them.
I hope my post is not a hijack but similar to the title.
Years ago, I desired an Elite II or an Langdon touched 92 but never went in that direction. A few academies ago, a police cadet talked so much trash on how good he was with his M9, I told him to bring it to class. Well he did not shine but he let me shoot his gun and it was nice for a plain Jane.
I always stayed with Glock or Springfield 1911 but the bug is flying around my head again.
While I like the looks of a WC or 92G-SD, the price seems Unreachable unless I sell something. I saw a youtube video with Ernie Langdon who preferred the 92a1. I think that video was years old.
So my questions, to get good all around performance, does one need to pay well over a grand for an SD or WC or will a plain 92a1 be sufficient?
Does one need a Brigadier slide to have an edge over the traditional slide?
If you don't have a higher end model and assuming EL no longer works on 92s, who are the desired smiths for 92s if some mods are wanted down the road?
Thanks in advance
I hope my post is not a hijack but similar to the title.
Years ago, I desired an Elite II or an Langdon touched 92 but never went in that direction. A few academies ago, a police cadet talked so much trash on how good he was with his M9, I told him to bring it to class. Well he did not shine but he let me shoot his gun and it was nice for a plain Jane.
I always stayed with Glock or Springfield 1911 but the bug is flying around my head again.
While I like the looks of a WC or 92G-SD, the price seems Unreachable unless I sell something. I saw a youtube video with Ernie Langdon who preferred the 92a1. I think that video was years old.
So my questions, to get good all around performance, does one need to pay well over a grand for an SD or WC or will a plain 92a1 be sufficient?
Does one need a Brigadier slide to have an edge over the traditional slide?
If you don't have a higher end model and assuming EL no longer works on 92s, who are the desired smiths for 92s if some mods are wanted down the road?
Thanks in advance
My advice to you is get a 92A1 put a D hammer spring in it and go from there. If you want more from it after that you can send it to Wilson or Allegheny Gun Works to make it more to your liking.
Here is a vid from MrGunsandGear himself on the D spring install:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItIVFNj15mE
If you're not super blind, then the normal fixed 92 sights ain't bad. They have a decent sight picture and with the rear dot/dots blacked out, they're a lot better. The rear notch is not hard to open up with a safe sided flat file.
The D spring does help, but I use mine with the regular spring and don't mind it at all. If you use the D spring, test all ammo thoroughly on DA, and change the mainspring every couple recoil springs (3K max).
In my experience, an M9/92 is as reliable as a handgun can be, and accurate enough. Practically, they're a full size gun and carry like one. Not the huge monster people make it out to be. I think they carry about like a Glock 17, but a little heavier.
ramairthree
03-16-16, 19:12
When they showed brand new and shiny,
And working, and with good magazines they were very welcome.
If you could get over the 9mm vs 45 thing.
Most have been rode hard and put way wet.
Saw plenty of locking blocks break.
Only slide damage I ever saw was in conjunction with a locking block.
I had the same one for 8 years.
Put about 30 k through it.
Kept it well lubed.
Changed recoil spring twice.
Updated to newer locking block.
Changed trigger and trigger bar spring once.
All PM. No breaks.
They will get replaced by something polymer.
In a few decades everyone will complain about those.
Those will get replaced by double stack 9mm 1911s.
If in charge of the army pistol program I would simply start replacing barrels as they go, slides with the new M9A3 as they go, and frames with the scalloped back strap ones or the Vertec ones or with a rail as they go.
Way cheaper and not need to replace all mags and holsters.
Or put a safety on Glocks.
It is my understanding the replacement must have a safety. The GPF will rival LE with NDs if not I guess.
As you can tell, I have a thing for Berettas :)
http://picpaste.novarata.net/pics/ae1ae86aacefbc20db921560f77a4556.jpg
nice SW…….so which one is your favorite?
is your Brigadier stock?
nice SW…….so which one is your favorite?
is your Brigadier stock?
The standard Brig in the photo has a D Spring, Elite II hammer, trijicon night sights, hogue grip panels with a custom medallion installed and an extended mag release.
My favorite is actually my M9A3, despite the color. Beretta did something to the trigger - it comes with a D spring standard, and it is the smoothest 92 trigger I have ever felt. And, it seems to be a tiny , tiny bit more accurate. It is easily my favorite to shoot at the range
I am going to try and swing one…..just which one is a current argument with myself.
I would like an 92G-SD but don't think I can do that price….if I could find one.
I like the Brig slide but I like the enhanced 92A1 frame and the price is much cheaper on the latter.
Now you got me looking at a 93….but would prefer black.
I actually want to eventually get one more M9A3. They are that sweet
Source: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12358-Beretta-92-reliability&p=224223&viewfull=1#post224223
Thanks for the re-post on my detailed comments regarding Check-Mate magazines and the Beretta 92, Defaultmp3. I stick by it, and as I type I'm carrying my 92D with Check-Mate dry-film magazines.
The OP actually covered things pertaining to the Check-Mate magazines fairly well in the video he posted.
Best, Jon
I am going to try and swing one…..just which one is a current argument with myself.
I would like an 92G-SD but don't think I can do that price….if I could find one.
I like the Brig slide but I like the enhanced 92A1 frame and the price is much cheaper on the latter.
Now you got me looking at a 93….but would prefer black.
G&R Tactical still has them on their website for $1029. That is a good price and if I had the scratch I'd order one as it is (for me) the ultimate Beretta. While the price seems high, remember what you're getting over a factory 92 then factor in the cost of having those mods done to a regular 92 and the shipping and the price becomes more palatable.
Grant will do ya right if you decide to go for the G-SD.
Here is a great thread from Grant himself about the 92G-SD:
https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-120601.html
BigA, this had bothered me all day. Earlier I had came to the conclusion that it would be safer (financially) to buy a 92A1 and now you throw this at me. ERGGGHHH
I have read countless posts on the 92 but still at a loss in which direction. My biggest dilemma is not having any time behind one and wanting to buy right the first time. a buddy is bringing his oldy 92FS to the range on Monday.
One thing I have not found in reviewing post after post, does a Brigadier slide do anything to improve accuracy potential or is it just for felt recoil and having a heavier duty slide?
I am looking for a shooter and if me and the Beretta become one…..it will get shot a lot but no plans to carry on duty. It will be a range toy, maybe shot in a match every now and then and be bedside. It will not replace my G19/17 or 1911s but added to the mix.
I still believe the 92A1 is for me, but still have a couple of days to decide. if you think another model would be great for a starter…..please advise.
I have huge hands 3X with long fingers, so me and the big grip will get along.
Wonderful topic of discussion. But.... I think this thread could use a few more pics ('cuz we all luv photos).
Here's my semi-custom 92FS:
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd29/Garys4598/CIMG5906_zpsca4bf050.jpg
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd29/Garys4598/CIMG5909_zpsd288c741.jpg
ramairthree
03-18-16, 22:31
Checkmate gave a horrible rap to the M9 and more so to itself.
They did to those early magazines exactly what they were asked to.
Just not a good match for powder like sand.
I run those magazines a lot at the range and they work fine.
The newer ones are nicer,
But I hate flat metal base plates.
I was issued my first M9 when they replaced the 1911s in Ranger Bn in the 80s
I bought my first 92FS in the early 90s.
They are not the newest thing.
But I am comfortable with them.
I guess they are like a small block Chevy.
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu220/ramairfour/photo42_zpsac28e74a.jpg (http://s649.photobucket.com/user/ramairfour/media/photo42_zpsac28e74a.jpg.html)c
Regardless of what gun you give to the military they're going to destroy them. The locking block on the original M9/92 is extremely prone to failure. I have only seen a few M9A1s and they feel better but they didn't add more the slide until the M9A3 and I have no idea about the locking block in that one. I owned a civilian 92 for a while and enjoyed it very much. So it has a lot to do with the military guns being worn out. The old 1911s were worn out and loose too so take it for what it is.
Haven't the improved locking blocks been around for a while now?
Haven't the improved locking blocks been around for a while now?
Speaking only from what I've seen working on them they updated the locking block plunger. The new one thinner one so the locking block has a thinner cavity. I'm assuming that was in an effort to add more metal to the actual locking block. I do know that they're still cracking however I'm not sure if the newer locking block I'm talking about is the newest version of it.
ramairthree
03-19-16, 08:44
For ages.
But even in 2012 or so I remember seeing the originals in q lot of guns.
And the supply bin full of locking blocks...
We're mostly old version locking blocks.
I think there have been two revisions.
They are on the 3rd gen of locking blocks now. The edges are smoother on them as well. So yea, they have been changed.
However, you MUST change the recoil springs every 3-5k. And, the military does NOT do that. Lacking of recoil spring changes will increase the risk of a locking block breakage greatly.
They are on the 3rd gen of locking blocks now. The edges are smoother on them as well. So yea, they have been changed.
However, you MUST change the recoil springs every 3-5k. And, the military does NOT do that. Lacking of recoil spring changes will increase the risk of a locking block breakage greatly.
Well the more you know, I'll start ordering recoil springs.
BigA, this had bothered me all day. Earlier I had came to the conclusion that it would be safer (financially) to buy a 92A1 and now you throw this at me. ERGGGHHH
I have read countless posts on the 92 but still at a loss in which direction. My biggest dilemma is not having any time behind one and wanting to buy right the first time. a buddy is bringing his oldy 92FS to the range on Monday.
One thing I have not found in reviewing post after post, does a Brigadier slide do anything to improve accuracy potential or is it just for felt recoil and having a heavier duty slide?
I am looking for a shooter and if me and the Beretta become one…..it will get shot a lot but no plans to carry on duty. It will be a range toy, maybe shot in a match every now and then and be bedside. It will not replace my G19/17 or 1911s but added to the mix.
I still believe the 92A1 is for me, but still have a couple of days to decide. if you think another model would be great for a starter…..please advise.
I have huge hands 3X with long fingers, so me and the big grip will get along.
A 92A1 sounds like it will meet all your wants and needs. The 92 series is a great and accurate shooter. The Brig slides were made to address a problem that had more to do with improper maintenance than it did with actual weakness in the slide itself. I've never ran a gun with the Brig slide to be able to tell you what difference, if any, it makes in perceived recoil, I only had a regular 92FS that I stupidly sold years ago because "I didn't need it".
Like I said earlier you can get the 92A1 shoot it see how you like it, toss a D spring in it and see if you like it better and go from there. If you decide you want more from it later send it to Wilson or Alagheny and have them make it more to your liking.
A 92A1 sounds like it will meet all your wants and needs. The 92 series is a great and accurate shooter. The Brig slides were made to address a problem that had more to do with improper maintenance than it did with actual weakness in the slide itself. I've never ran a gun with the Brig slide to be able to tell you what difference, if any, it makes in perceived recoil, I only had a regular 92FS that I stupidly sold years ago because "I didn't need it".
Like I said earlier you can get the 92A1 shoot it see how you like it, toss a D spring in it and see if you like it better and go from there. If you decide you want more from it later send it to Wilson or Alagheny and have them make it more to your liking.
The Brig slide DOES reduce felt recoil a tiny bit. You can actually feel the difference if you shoot a normal slide and a Brig slide back to back. I honestly did not expect to feel a difference, as the weight difference is very small. But you can tell.
I will say that the Wilson Brig Tact with the Brigadier slide AND the railed frame shoots even softer than a plain Brigadier with a non railed slide. I shot my Wilson brig Friday and yesterday, and it is a super soft shooter. But, the gun is heavier in the hand.
Normal Brigadier:
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/mistershipwreck/Brig88_zpspwatnm0u.jpg~original
Wilson Brigadier:
http://picpaste.novarata.net/pics/9fa2cfce6ffca0ee084acbdd896e1801.jpg
The Brig slide DOES reduce felt recoil a tiny bit. You can actually feel the difference if you shoot a normal slide and a Brig slide back to back. I honestly did not expect to feel a difference, as the weight difference is very small. But you can tell.
I will say that the Wilson Brig Tact with the Brigadier slide AND the railed frame shoots even softer than a plain Brigadier with a non railed slide. I show my Wilson brig Friday and yesterday, and it is a super soft shooter. But, the gun is heavier in the hand.
Normal Brigadier:
Wilson Brigadier:
I will differ to your expertise as you have a most envious collection of 92 variants.
I just know if I could only have one Beretta it would be the 92G-SD with the Wilson a very close second.
Nightstalker865
03-19-16, 21:11
I will differ to your expertise as you have a most envious collection of 92 variants.
I just know if I could only have one Beretta it would be the 92G-SD with the Wilson a very close second.
I own both the 92G-SD and the Wilson Brig TAC. I can say without a doubt the Wilson is the better shooter. The recoil impulse is smoother and the trigger is far better.
To be fair my 92G-SD has the D spring and elite II hammer installed in it.
I think it has to do with the extra tight tolerances Wilson specs in their model. I've had a couple friends shoot them back to back and both agreed with my opinion. I am very surprised there is so much difference between the two but it is very apparent when shooting them back to back.
Both guns are 2015 build models.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.