Beretta M9 vs SIG M17

[Slater]

Is this just more sour grapes/hyperbole?


"Beretta Defense Technologies said recently that its M9 pistol is about 10 times as reliable as the U.S. Army’s new Modular Handgun System.

Beretta lost its hold on the U.S. Military’s pistol market in January when the Army chose Sig Sauer to replace the M9 as the standard sidearm.
Beretta officials maintain that new M9 pistols tested at the company’s manufacturing facility in Gallatin, Tennessee have continued the world-record reliability pace for the product, according to a Sept. 13 press release.

Beretta U.S.A. completed the fourteenth consecutive M9 Lot Acceptance Test this month with an average of only one malfunction every 19,090 rounds.
During this testing period 42 M9 pistols were fired 210,000 rounds, with resultant reliability “almost 10 times better than the rate of reliability required by the U.S. Army in its current Modular Handgun System program,” according to the release.

“The incredible reliability of the M9 pistol is being continuously confirmed,” said Gabriele de Plano, Vice- President of Military Marketing and Operations for Beretta Defense Technologies. “Half of the LAT reliability tests resulted in ‘perfect’ reliability scores with zero malfunctions in 15,000 rounds!"


https://kitup.military.com/2017/09/m9.html

[crusader377]

I would take the proven M9 any day of the week over the poorly tested Sig P320/M17.

Personally, I think the Army messed up picking the M17. It should have either kept the M9 in its upgraded M9A3 form or gone with the Glock 19 which is also a very proven pistol.

[Slater]

I'm surprised they're still doing Lot Acceptance Tests on M9's. I thought those contracts were long completed.

[BrigandTwoFour]

I don't think it's sour grapes so much as it is marketing. I've noticed an uptick in interest with the M9 lately, and I think Beretta is angling for the M9 to become a classic like the 1911.

Touting its reliability part of that.

If it was sour grapes, I would think hey would be comparing the 320 to the APX.

[Nick B]

Ernest Langdon was at the Beretta factory back in June and he said that they're still making M9's to fulfill current contracts.

[Slater]

Looking at Beretta's press releases, they're going to be producing M9's for US and foreign contracts until at least 2020.

[Feline]

The M9 is an excellent service pistol, and serves our military well. All they had to do was phase in the M9A3, but instead they F'd up big time adopting the POS Sig. Long live the M9.

[Glock9mm1990]

The M9 is an excellent service pistol, and serves our military well. All they had to do was phase in the M9A3, but instead they F'd up big time adopting the POS Sig. Long live the M9.
This, the M17 is a complete failure and a waste of tax payer money. Especially since they are sticking with the 9mm round it made no sense to go to a new unproven handgun that has too many problems right off the bat. Should have stuck with the M9A3. When Beretta says the M9 is ten times more reliable then the 320 I have to believe them.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

I will take my 92G-SD over anything. Nothing shoots like a heavy 9 with long sights and a smooth trigger.

[Feline]

I will take my 92G-SD over anything. Nothing shoots like a heavy 9 with long sights and a smooth trigger.

I think you meant to say, "I will take a Wilson 92G Brigadier Tactical over anything. Nothing shoots like a heavy 9 with long sights and a smooth trigger."

[SIGguy229]

Personally I think we should have gone to the G19...the requirements for an external safety are antiquated.

The M9 needs to go away...soonest. I dropped that like a hot rock when I was deployed and offered a G19 to carry.

[brushy bill]

I would take the proven M9 any day of the week over the poorly tested Sig P320/M17.

Personally, I think the Army messed up picking the M17. It should have either kept the M9 in its upgraded M9A3 form or gone with the Glock 19 which is also a very proven pistol.



The M9 is an excellent service pistol, and serves our military well. All they had to do was phase in the M9A3, but instead they F'd up big time adopting the POS Sig. Long live the M9.


Should have stuck with the M9A3. When Beretta says the M9 is ten times more reliable then the 320 I have to believe them.

Pretty much this (Beretta or Glock). Gave up on SIG a long time ago.

[call_me_ski]

If Sig can get the P320 to stop firing when dropped from knee high onto carpet they will have a good gun. Supposedly the M17/18 already has the fix.

There was some reliability testing posted on another board from a department test and the Sig smoked other entries in reliability, including Glock. Each test has its quirks.

Beretta did not claim their pistol was ten times as reliable as the M17. They claim it exceeded the M17 requirements Ten fold. That is completely different.

Honestly, the DOD should dump the M17, go M18 force wide and allow the units that want to ditch the safety. I love the 92 and Beretta. I respect the company more than Sig, but the design is tired. If we can get a more modern design while paying less long term, we should. The modular design of the Sig also allows for growth if need be.

For the record I do think that the XM17 trials should have played out differently(or at the very least played out) but this the point we are at.

[Straight Shooter]

Damn, I guess the old saying "Everything comes back around sooner or later" is true. All, or MOSTLY all, Ive seen, read & heard for decades was "hate" for the M9,
then alla sudden errbody loves it once another sidearm is chosen.
Ive said here & elsewhere for years now..the M9 is & was a great pistol, one of the most accurate & surely one of the most reliable ever made. All the internet hate is from people who never shot one or just repeating old bullshit from others who didnt know what the hell they were talking about.
Was it "perfect"? Why HELL NO...none are. But as a Glock man & former owner & user of the M9...Id NEVER feel undergunned/outgunned or whatever if the M9 was all I could ever own again.
NO experiance with that model Sig, but I know its NOWHERE near as vetted as the Beretta, and God knows why they chose it over Glock..but thats another thread.

[hile]

I do not have a lot experience with a P320. I've rented and shot it a few times while others were going through major 9mm pistols to decide what they liked. However, each of those times, I left the range session not a fan of the pistol. I have a 2008 vintage M9 customized by wilson (before the 92G Tactical existed as a line item), and my wife has a Wilson Compact Carry. That's now her favorite gun, even more than her P226 Legion SAO.

Would I prefer a Glock 19, 17, or 34 or even my PPQ M2 given my choice? Certainly. Would I take an M9 -- even a beat to hell from a NG arms room M9 -- over a P320? Every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[BrigandTwoFour]

The renewed interest in the M9 is actually pretty interesting.The hate the M9 receives really is due to the same BS that caused everyone to hate the 1911 before the M9 was adopted. Military M9s were beat to crap, did not take advantage of newer revisions, and were victims of lowest bidder magazines. I recently learned that the M9 TDP still includes the first generation locking block, while all other 92s are built using the 4th generation block that is much more reliable. There are a lot of little enhancements Beretta has made over time that haven't made it into the M9 contract (but did make it into the M9A1).

This was an informative video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2AZyOswi7g

[kremtok]

Damn, I guess the old saying "Everything comes back around sooner or later" is true. All, or MOSTLY all, Ive seen, read & heard for decades was "hate" for the M9,
then alla sudden errbody loves it once another sidearm is chosen.
Ive said here & elsewhere for years now..the M9 is & was a great pistol, one of the most accurate & surely one of the most reliable ever made. All the internet hate is from people who never shot one or just repeating old bullshit from others who didnt know what the hell they were talking about.
Was it "perfect"? Why HELL NO...none are. But as a Glock man & former owner & user of the M9...Id NEVER feel undergunned/outgunned or whatever if the M9 was all I could ever own again.
NO experiance with that model Sig, but I know its NOWHERE near as vetted as the Beretta, and God knows why they chose it over Glock..but thats another thread.

Exactly. When is the last time someone recommended an M9/92 for a new purchase? Now it's like the damn thing is the greatest pistol created.

[Cold/Bore]

The renewed interest in the M9 is actually pretty interesting.The hate the M9 receives really is due to the same BS that caused everyone to hate the 1911 before the M9 was adopted. Military M9s were beat to crap, did not take advantage of newer revisions, and were victims of lowest bidder magazines. I recently learned that the M9 TDP still includes the first generation locking block, while all other 92s are built using the 4th generation block that is much more reliable. There are a lot of little enhancements Beretta has made over time that haven't made it into the M9 contract (but did make it into the M9A1).

This was an informative video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2AZyOswi7g

Great video! So much misinformation out there. I figure there is a lot of misinformation on the M17 as well. Has there ever been a small arm adopted by the US Army that hasn't had any controversy? As far as I know, every weapon has had its detractors. There's a lot of money to be made on government arms contracts. If you can tarnish the reputation of the winning bidder's submission, sow seeds of doubt and mistrust amongst the troops for their weapons, get a congressman or two convinced that there is a problem (that's easy... campaign contributions), and get the media involved, you might get another chance at a new contract. You can get a ton of support from the ignorant masses because most really don't understand firearms very well, nor their procurement (including the soldiers using them) . Plus the government is really good at screwing things up like the M9 with subpar replacement parts/magazines, and changing the powder from stick to ball on the M-16.

Now I want an M9 (and a M17).

[El Pistolero]

I'm just here to say that I like guns and want both the P320 and the M9 in my collection.

[Hammer_Man]

I'm a stout 92 series defender, I think they are great pistols. I even liked the beat up ones my unit has in it's armory. I think the hate it gets is ill deserved.

[1986s4]

If Sig can get the P320 to stop firing when dropped from knee high onto carpet they will have a good gun. Supposedly the M17/18 already has the fix.

There was some reliability testing posted on another board from a department test and the Sig smoked other entries in reliability, including Glock. Each test has its quirks.

Beretta did not claim their pistol was ten times as reliable as the M17. They claim it exceeded the M17 requirements Ten fold. That is completely different.

Honestly, the DOD should dump the M17, go M18 force wide and allow the units that want to ditch the safety. I love the 92 and Beretta. I respect the company more than Sig, but the design is tired. If we can get a more modern design while paying less long term, we should. The modular design of the Sig also allows for growth if need be.

For the record I do think that the XM17 trials should have played out differently(or at the very least played out) but this the point we are at.

I am not a M17/P320 fan. I've never shot one, beat one with a hammer or dropped one from any height onto any surface but the testing seemed incomplete to me. I like the M9 and I respect Glocks for their proven record even though I don't own one.

[17K]

I'm usually pretty open to the latest hotness, and I've always been a fan of the M9 for me, but I understand how it's not the best choice for a good many people. I wouldn't pick one ober a Glock, classic Sig, 1911, or several others.

That being said, the M17 is a joke and the Beretta is a better pistol.

[Fordtough25]

Love my beretta, and glocks. I don't have much love for Sig but my opinion doesn't mean much for the US Army and their new pistol. Just have to hope for the best for our troops!

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

If they can fix the 320’s quirks I’m sure it will be fine. It is lighter than the beretta, but I think the whole project is a colossal waste of time and money. I’ll bet $5 the whole process was just to secure some fancy military brass’s retirement. It was announced almost immediately after the Hand-off to trump so it stinks of panic fire.

[sundance435]

I love the M9/92FS, but if you've read any of the mounting number of articles decrying the load our troops are carrying into battle, then anything that lightens that load, as long as it doesn't sacrifice reliability, has got to be a step in the right direction. 9mm NATO ball bullets are double the weight of 1 M855 bullet and empty Beretta/Checkmate mags have to weigh at least as much as one empty PMAG. Why are soldiers even required to carry 2 spare handgun mags?

Just my inexperienced opinion, but something polymer with a 3.5" - 3.75" barrel that holds 10-15 rounds in polymer mags seems to make a lot more sense for what it might actually be used for, when weight is a factor.

[Evel Baldgui]

I would not choose either, and favor a CZ, Walther, or Glock.

[Feline]

I love the M9/92FS, but if you've read any of the mounting number of articles decrying the load our troops are carrying into battle, then anything that lightens that load, as long as it doesn't sacrifice reliability, has got to be a step in the right direction. 9mm NATO ball bullets are double the weight of 1 M855 bullet and empty Beretta/Checkmate mags have to weigh at least as much as one empty PMAG. Why are soldiers even required to carry 2 spare handgun mags?

Just my inexperienced opinion, but something polymer with a 3.5" - 3.75" barrel that holds 10-15 rounds in polymer mags seems to make a lot more sense for what it might actually be used for, when weight is a factor.

Gen 5 Glock 19/17 would have been the logical choice.

[ColtSeavers]

Love my 92a1 and the wife's 92a1.

Still trying to figure out why the testing was so half assed.

[sundance435]

Gen 5 Glock 19/17 would have been the logical choice.

Maybe the 19, but you could still go smaller, and why 15 rounds? 3.75" barrel with 12-13 round mags should fulfill every task you could reasonably expect of a military sidearm. These aren't offensive weapons - you might use them as a primary in house clearings and certain CQB scenarios, but the reality is that the "last stand" with your sidearm occurs rarely, if ever, in modern combat. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but, again, the military should be realistic in terms of what the gun is probably or most likely going to be used for vs. the weight these guys are having to carry into battle. It may seem trivial when you're talking about half a lb to a lb in weight savings, but I'd be willing to bet that the guys having to hump it would disagree. Merely providing a reliable-enough sidearm at the lowest possible cost shouldn't be the only benchmark.

General Dynamics had signaled early on that they were partnering with S&W on an entry. An M&P compact 9mm with GD engineering, design, and metallurgical changes for increased reliability might have been pretty close to what I'm suggesting. It must've become clear to GD that there was no reason for them to be involved with something that was going to be off-the-shelf. Can you imagine the possibilities if a company with the technical expertise of General Dynamics was involved in designing a modern sidearm based on realistic requirements?

[davidjinks]

I love reading and hearing how the testing was "half assed".

Please, tell me how the testing was half assed. I'd like to hear from someone who was there about how the testing was conducted.


Love my 92a1 and the wife's 92a1.

Still trying to figure out why the testing was so half assed.

[southswede]

I love reading and hearing how the testing was "half assed".

Please, tell me how the testing was half assed. I'd like to hear from someone who was there about how the testing was conducted.

During testing, they didn't smack the P320 with a hammer at the exact -30 degree angle? :-)

[davidjinks]

There's an actual mil standard on the requirements for dropping the weapons.

I'm trying to find out from someone who was there about how they half assed the testing.

But I get your sarcasm.


During testing, they didn't smack the P320 with a hammer at the exact -30 degree angle? :-)

[USMC_Anglico]

Nothing can change the fact that M9's have a number of inherent flaws compared to modern pistols:

DA/SA trigger pull, the military will never spend the time, money or ammo to get joes proficient with it

Slide mounted safety/decocker with an open slide design, also a fail

Ergonomics of that fat grip, definitely not user friendly for some hands

Thankfully SOCOM went G19, I pity big Army and eventually the USMC and Air Force as they are also testing the Sig for adoption

[Mr. Goodtimes]

Well the M9 is based on the impeccable, thoroughbred lineage of the 93R, so I would have to say the M9 is the better gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glock9mm1990]

I love reading and hearing how the testing was "half assed".

Please, tell me how the testing was half assed. I'd like to hear from someone who was there about how the testing was conducted.
This video goes into great detail on the M17 program. Basically they did not do the high endurance test where they shoot at least 25,000 rounds like they did with the M9 vs Sig 226 trials in the 80's.

https://youtu.be/dGI2H0EjDTw

[davidjinks]

Again, I'm waiting to hear from someone who was actually there.

[Pappabear]

Sig 320, I have a nice gussy'ed up M9 after a trip to Wilson Combat, but Id still take my 320 over that gun. Both are very nice guns and having a back up pistol is a great thing, M9 or Sig!! I'd save my fight for the m4 of my choosing:)