• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Modern Modular Pistol APX vs SIG 320

TurtleDude

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
as most of those who keep up on gun news know, the Army has replaced the 22 year (as the M9) old Beretta with the SIG 320 (the army version will have a manual safety). The Request for bids required that the pistol be modular in design, striker fired, etc.

Today was the first day that the Beretta APX was supposed to be available (many shops got the pistols in a couple days ago and so this week was the actual release date). I obtained one in the last day or so and I have a 320C as well.

Here are my impressions

The Beretta has a modified version of the famous GLOCK trigger. It appears that the pivoting center lever is slightly longer. that makes the trigger slightly smoother. The beretta feels really god in my hands, my wife, with smaller hands, found it slightly too large (we did not change out the backstraps-a couple came with the pistol)

The Beretta is noticeably top heavy with the weight fairly high above your hand. As my wife correctly noted, that accentuates the recoil impulse level. The sights are high contrast sights-easy to line up. The weapon holds 17 rounds and one of its benefits is that factory magazines list at 29 dollars a piece and if you buy straight from Beretta, they reduce the price to 26 dollars if you buy two or more.

The ejection of the magazine was very positive, and the mag release is easy to manipulate for those with larger hands. The gun naturally pointed very well

The SIG is a bit smoother in terms of the trigger since it doesn't have the pivoting center lever. The 320C I bought has night sights but it was 569 or so compared to the 525 for the beretta. The magazines cost 44 or so apiece and you can buy the 21 round extended magazines though they are 10 bucks more. the higher cost of the magazines is about the only area where the SIG was inferior to the beretta.

I would choose the SIG over the Beretta but both are very good modern striker driven, plastic framed modular pistol.
 
When we (82nd), my bat was drf1, went to green ramp for Somalia, I considered bringing my sp101, or hole-hog it and bring the 1911 as well. But the penalty is too much, no outside gear like that. Berettas were crap in my opinion. We went home that night, still not sure I'm happy about that.
 
ecofarm said:
When we (82nd), my bat was drf1, went to green ramp for Somalia, I considered bringing my sp101, or hole-hog it and bring the 1911 as well. But the penalty is too much, no outside gear like that. Berettas were crap in my opinion. We went home that night, still not sure I'm happy about that.
Click to expand...

I have found Berettas to be very very well made. The 92 (M9) was rated the best made 9mm in a review done a bunch of years ago and that included some real classics such as the Browning HP, the SIG 226, and the CZ 75 as well as some really good handguns that are no longer made such as the underrated but extremely serviceable STAR 30 and the HK squeeze cocking pistols. I have a beretta 84-a 13 shot 380-which I often carry that is utterly reliable. I have at least 20,000 rounds of experience through the 92/M9 and I cannot recall any failure to fire. The APX i haven't had long enough to determine its reliability but I didn't see anything about it that suggests poorly made or unreliable

I just found the SIG's balance and weight distribution better
 
TurtleDude said:
as most of those who keep up on gun news know, the Army has replaced the 22 year (as the M9) old Beretta with the SIG 320 (the army version will have a manual safety). The Request for bids required that the pistol be modular in design, striker fired, etc.

Today was the first day that the Beretta APX was supposed to be available (many shops got the pistols in a couple days ago and so this week was the actual release date). I obtained one in the last day or so and I have a 320C as well.

Here are my impressions

The Beretta has a modified version of the famous GLOCK trigger. It appears that the pivoting center lever is slightly longer. that makes the trigger slightly smoother. The beretta feels really god in my hands, my wife, with smaller hands, found it slightly too large (we did not change out the backstraps-a couple came with the pistol)

The Beretta is noticeably top heavy with the weight fairly high above your hand. As my wife correctly noted, that accentuates the recoil impulse level. The sights are high contrast sights-easy to line up. The weapon holds 17 rounds and one of its benefits is that factory magazines list at 29 dollars a piece and if you buy straight from Beretta, they reduce the price to 26 dollars if you buy two or more.

The ejection of the magazine was very positive, and the mag release is easy to manipulate for those with larger hands. The gun naturally pointed very well

The SIG is a bit smoother in terms of the trigger since it doesn't have the pivoting center lever. The 320C I bought has night sights but it was 569 or so compared to the 525 for the beretta. The magazines cost 44 or so apiece and you can buy the 21 round extended magazines though they are 10 bucks more. the higher cost of the magazines is about the only area where the SIG was inferior to the beretta.

I would choose the SIG over the Beretta but both are very good modern striker driven, plastic framed modular pistol.
Click to expand...

Good information. I was looking at the new SIG 320. Of course, I can only dream of 21 round magazines....
 
ocean515 said:
Good information. I was looking at the new SIG 320. Of course, I can only dream of 21 round magazines....
Click to expand...

I understand that. USPSA is pretty well dead in California save for "revolver" "Production" and Limited 10. its idiotic but hopefully we will get a federal decision that says the creeping cancer of magazine limits is a violation of the constitution
 
TurtleDude said:
I have found Berettas to be very very well made. The 92 (M9) was rated the best made 9mm in a review done a bunch of years ago and that included some real classics such as the Browning HP, the SIG 226, and the CZ 75 as well as some really good handguns that are no longer made such as the underrated but extremely serviceable STAR 30 and the HK squeeze cocking pistols. I have a beretta 84-a 13 shot 380-which I often carry that is utterly reliable. I have at least 20,000 rounds of experience through the 92/M9 and I cannot recall any failure to fire. The APX i haven't had long enough to determine its reliability but I didn't see anything about it that suggests poorly made or unreliable

I just found the SIG's balance and weight distribution better
Click to expand...

Rounded top, only 9mm, huge grip, bad balance weighted back absurdly (thanks to double stacking light rounds), issue sights were half moons... didn't like 'em. Didn't know anyone that preferred it to a private handgun. We coulda bought berettas to get more practice, wouldn't waste shooting time with 'em except required range.

Maybe some guys liked 'em. I don't remember a ranger or sf liking them, that I spoke with.
 
TurtleDude said:
I understand that. USPSA is pretty well dead in California save for "revolver" "Production" and Limited 10. its idiotic but hopefully we will get a federal decision that says the creeping cancer of magazine limits is a violation of the constitution
Click to expand...

California, where accuracy is not just a goal, but perhaps a matter of life and death......
 
ecofarm said:
Rounded top, only 9mm, huge grip, bad balance weighted back absurdly (thanks to double stacking light rounds), issue sights were half moons... didn't like 'em. Didn't know anyone that preferred it to a private handgun. We coulda bought berettas to get more practice, wouldn't waste shooting time with 'em except required range.

Maybe some guys liked 'em. I don't remember a ranger or sf liking them, that I spoke with.
Click to expand...

My nephew noted (two tours Iraq, Rangers) then ran an A camp as a Captain in the SF, that the biggest criticism of the M9 was that FMJ 9mm wasn't a great stopping round. The second issue he noted, was that the contract magazines (Made by USA magazines rather than the OEM or the well regarded Mec-Gar) were crappy. When he came home between his tours in the Rangers, I gave him a handful of Mec-Gar extra capacity magazines-he in turn gave them to one of the Lts who served under him who carried a Beretta and he later noted that completely eliminated feed issues with that man's pistol

the other knock on the Beretta was that it was a big larger than some other handguns that carried the same number of rounds.

the Beretta is easy to shoot well save for the first round from the hammer down position. I have taught 6-7 people who were academy or OTC bound and every one of them easily made expert
 
ocean515 said:
California, where accuracy is not just a goal, but perhaps a matter of life and death......
Click to expand...

if the civilian police in lala land need 15-17 rounds to protect themselves from the Californian criminals, there civilians ought to have the same option as well
 
TurtleDude said:
the Beretta is easy to shoot well save for the first round from the hammer down position. I have taught 6-7 people who were academy or OTC bound and every one of them easily made expert
Click to expand...

It wasn't a question of accuracy, the gun just didn't compare to our stock private handguns (everything on the market). Anyone assigned one (just a few in our company) pretty much wanted to bring something else if they could.

I presume the Sig is an improvement.
 
ecofarm said:
It wasn't a question of accuracy, the gun just didn't compare to our stock private handguns (everything on the market). Anyone assigned one (just a few in our company) pretty much wanted to bring something else if they could.

I presume the Sig is an improvement.
Click to expand...

well the striker fired weapons have a consistent trigger pull and that increases first round hit probability. If one is limited to 9mm FMJ, the Beretta is still a good choice if you know how to properly stage the double action trigger. That, however, is a skill that comes from lots of rounds downrange and since the vast majority of those issued handguns in the military are not people with that sort of experience, yes, the SIG is an improvement in my view.
 
TurtleDude said:
well the striker fired weapons have a consistent trigger pull and that increases first round hit probability. If one is limited to 9mm FMJ, the Beretta is still a good choice if you know how to properly stage the double action trigger. That, however, is a skill that comes from lots of rounds downrange and since the vast majority of those issued handguns in the military are not people with that sort of experience, yes, the SIG is an improvement in my view.
Click to expand...
Most of my complaints as well as my fellow SF guys complaints about the M9 don't have all that much to do with the accuracy or general reliability of the gun. Rather that as a 9mm gun it is to big and to heavy for what it is. Pistols for us as well as the majority of the military are back up guns for if your M4 goes down. Which means it's carried tons but used very seldom. Having a big bulk rarely used item when you are already overloaded and you are always short on kit space is just not going to make many folks happy. Finally and this is my biggest complaint about the M9 is simply the design. My opinion is a safety/decocker has no business on a combat pistol. If my M4 goes down and the enemy is close enough that they are within pistol range and your fine motor skills are gone due to adrenaline the last thing I want to do is try and manipulate a safety. Back when I carried the M9 we all kept the decocker/safetys on fire but every once in a while after all the work that's involved in getting to a target be it fast roping, crammed into a GMV bouncing off road or simply patrolling through the woods, somehow your safety would get moved into safe. In my community it's known as a dead mans gun.

That's one of the things I love about pistols like my issued Glock. When I pull the trigger I know there is virtually no chance it's not going to go bang. Inside a house with a bad guy trying to kill you is not the time to hope your pistol is still on fire.
 
braindrain said:
Most of my complaints as well as my fellow SF guys complaints about the M9 don't have all that much to do with the accuracy or general reliability of the gun. Rather that as a 9mm gun it is to big and to heavy for what it is. Pistols for us as well as the majority of the military are back up guns for if your M4 goes down. Which means it's carried tons but used very seldom. Having a big bulk rarely used item when you are already overloaded and you are always short on kit space is just not going to make many folks happy. Finally and this is my biggest complaint about the M9 is simply the design. My opinion is a safety/decocker has no business on a combat pistol. If my M4 goes down and the enemy is close enough that they are within pistol range and your fine motor skills are gone due to adrenaline the last thing I want to do is try and manipulate a safety. Back when I carried the M9 we all kept the decocker/safetys on fire but every once in a while after all the work that's involved in getting to a target be it fast roping, crammed into a GMV bouncing off road or simply patrolling through the woods, somehow your safety would get moved into safe. In my community it's known as a dead mans gun.

That's one of the things I love about pistols like Glocks. When I pull the trigger I know there is virtually no chance it's not going to go bang.
Click to expand...

all valid, my nephew noted the pistol took up space that was better suited for carrying extra frags-more useful-in his opinion-for house clearing than a M9. The military DEMANDED the safety on it-that is why the 320 that was adopted has to include that modification, a manual safety. a de-cocking lever-such as the SIG 226 or the Beretta 92G (the safety lever only drops the hammer, the gun fires when you pull the trigger) is more than sufficient.
 
Ive always liked the Beretta...but then I have large hands. Many that were required to shoot it couldnt comfortably operate the weapon and the mag release without using their left hand or manipulating their grip. Sounds like its the same as before from what you are describing.
 
VanceMack said:
Ive always liked the Beretta...but then I have large hands. Many that were required to shoot it couldnt comfortably operate the weapon and the mag release without using their left hand or manipulating their grip. Sounds like its the same as before from what you are describing.
Click to expand...

the modular pistols allow an almost complete lower receiver swap since the serialized part is the chassis. Gen Four GLocks, the M&P both have different sized back straps to change the grip size but these modular firearms allow you to change the entire size of the weapon with what is essentially a complete lower sans the "guts". The Beretta lower costs around 50 bucks and the SIG is about the Same

now the APX is just out and the main variation is the color but with the SIG 320 there are several different sizes-compact, carry, full size, that can all be achieved with the same basic pistol with different modular lowers

here are the lowers for Beretta

Beretta APX Grip Frame, Flat Dark Earth color

and SIG-showing the different sized lowers (go to model 320)


https://www.sigsauer.com/store/parts.html

The beretta did suffer from the fact that it was hard for many women and some men-due to hand size, to efficiently use that firearm. The modular system was designed to alleviate that problem and allow the same basic weapon to serve as a holstered full sized service weapon as well as perhaps a concealed smaller backup weapon
 
My useless Opinion.

Firearm needs and usages have changed dramatically, especially in the recent usages and conflicts.

that being said, My experience was a transition from BDU's, to DCU's, to Digital and I got out. What that meant was when I was introduced to firearms, we were still playing in jungles and wet damp conditions. From there we changed to dry dusty conditions and then urban conditions (still dusty)

That being said conflicts changed as well.

The 1911 being the original "pack a punch" through the jungle, to the more modern M9, 9mm being a higher capacity etc etc,

The evolution of the pistol needs have changed by the ones operating it and the need was there.


The sad part was Berretta was not really given a chance. (sorta) as they were farming out their deals already, when they could have given the same guidelines to Berretta to modify the M9. (Current M9 A3) meets the requested specs, but it was too late the P320 got the contract.


Anyways.... that being said....


M9 was simple, accurate (overall weight) , double stack (Higher capacity)m, 9mm ("enough" caliber for a 2ndary weapon) , some what modular, to fit the needs of many (smaller grip but you can add on, men and women in the military)


During is service it served its purpose. But now the way we operate and our current needs of environment, we need to update the weapons.


1) Safety in my mind was not an issue until it was brought to my attentions. I never thoughts about the safety issues during holstering, or even during slide manipulation, as I trained and train hard around it. That being said when you put another weapon in my hand now, I realize how simple the safety does get in the way, (thinking Glock/trigger safety, or the standard M11, P226 grip/thumb safety) So the need an evolution of removing the safety from the top made sense.

2) The design and setup, the upper/slide of the M9 is technical and a lot of moving pieces that needed to be revamped, Like our AR system compared to the AK system, less moving parts, less malfunctions easier maintenance etc. So many new designs now are simple to break down, clean and replace. Think if you busted the safety on the M9, that whole upper system to really tear it a part, from the rotating pins, to the safety block etc, needs to be removed.....

3) Modularity, ok if you want to be a GQ, and add on laser, lights, night sights blah blah blah..... well thats on you, it makes it pretty.....

4) Rapid use, Firing techniques, weight etc etc.... lets face it, the M9 is heavy, bulky and surely needed an update.... BUT with that for an 9mm it was also very very accurate, with minimal training due to the heavier weight. Give a new shooter a M9 and a G43 and while the G43 may be comfortable, the M9 would be surely more accurate right off the bat. training over time anyone can be good with X weapon, but the M9 was a great grab and go. So its a toss up, Because of my training and knowledge of firearms, I would NOW appreciate a lighter pistol, BUT.....this is a contract for the Military, not a specs ops group. you need something that is comfortable and easy to use across the board.

5) biggest concern, with my experience.....9mm is not enough for a person high as a kite, takes a lot more than 3 rounds to the chest, and NO we are not taught double taps and 1 to the head...... Center mass, again to the general military not no Magpul Industries training course.





Long drawn out?


Good move to the P320, Im sure, we needed a revamp.... I am concerned though. a pistol is supposed to be a "secondary" weapon. Why did we focus on this? Why not update the AR platform. those to me are primary soldiering weapons. In our current operations, and locations, the AR platform suffers the greatest due to location. Was the M9 so inferior that it needed the move before the primary weapons?


I will say this, in the field I have had less malfunctions with my M9 than I have with my AR. That I spend meticulous hours cleaning, to only have it foul up when I needed it the most???


I am in the market for a new update from my personal M9. It was the Glock 19 vs the P320........ Glock 19 won out in my book..

1) Modularity was the same between the 2
2) Parts and availability, WAY more Glock parts.
3) P320 is still in "Beta" testing...who knows what gremlins will show up, hate to be the first guy when I really need it to run into a problem (Yeah yea I know we have been using M11 for a while, but the GLOCK is so interchangeable)
3) Safety, Yes the Glock having only a trigger safety, unless I violate 1 of the 4 firearms safety fundamentals....well.... the trigger safety is more than enough that I need.


$575 for a Gen4 with 3 mags...... Gawt damn Im in!!!
 
Last edited:
Exactice said:
My useless Opinion.

Firearm needs and usages have changed dramatically, especially in the recent usages and conflicts.

that being said, My experience was a transition from BDU's, to DCU's, to Digital and I got out. What that meant was when I was introduced to firearms, we were still playing in jungles and wet damp conditions. From there we changed to dry dusty conditions and then urban conditions (still dusty)

That being said conflicts changed as well.

The 1911 being the original "pack a punch" through the jungle, to the more modern M9, 9mm being a higher capacity etc etc,

The evolution of the pistol needs have changed by the ones operating it and the need was there.


The sad part was Berretta was not really given a chance. (sorta) as they were farming out their deals already, when they could have given the same guidelines to Berretta to modify the M9. (Current M9 A3) meets the requested specs, but it was too late the P320 got the contract.


Anyways.... that being said....


M9 was simple, accurate (overall weight) , double stack (Higher capacity)m, 9mm ("enough" caliber for a 2ndary weapon) , some what modular, to fit the needs of many (smaller grip but you can add on, men and women in the military)


During is service it served its purpose. But now the way we operate and our current needs of environment, we need to update the weapons.


1) Safety in my mind was not an issue until it was brought to my attentions. I never thoughts about the safety issues during holstering, or even during slide manipulation, as I trained and train hard around it. That being said when you put another weapon in my hand now, I realize how simple the safety does get in the way, (thinking Glock/trigger safety, or the standard M11, P226 grip/thumb safety) So the need an evolution of removing the safety from the top made sense.

2) The design and setup, the upper/slide of the M9 is technical and a lot of moving pieces that needed to be revamped, Like our AR system compared to the AK system, less moving parts, less malfunctions easier maintenance etc. So many new designs now are simple to break down, clean and replace. Think if you busted the safety on the M9, that whole upper system to really tear it a part, from the rotating pins, to the safety block etc, needs to be removed.....

3) Modularity, ok if you want to be a GQ, and add on laser, lights, night sights blah blah blah..... well thats on you, it makes it pretty.....

4) Rapid use, Firing techniques, weight etc etc.... lets face it, the M9 is heavy, bulky and surely needed an update.... BUT with that for an 9mm it was also very very accurate, with minimal training due to the heavier weight. Give a new shooter a M9 and a G43 and while the G43 may be comfortable, the M9 would be surely more accurate right off the bat. training over time anyone can be good with X weapon, but the M9 was a great grab and go. So its a toss up, Because of my training and knowledge of firearms, I would NOW appreciate a lighter pistol, BUT.....this is a contract for the Military, not a specs ops group. you need something that is comfortable and easy to use across the board.

5) biggest concern, with my experience.....9mm is not enough for a person high as a kite, takes a lot more than 3 rounds to the chest, and NO we are not taught double taps and 1 to the head...... Center mass, again to the general military not no Magpul Industries training course.





Long drawn out?


Good move to the P320, Im sure, we needed a revamp.... I am concerned though. a pistol is supposed to be a "secondary" weapon. Why did we focus on this? Why not update the AR platform. those to me are primary soldiering weapons. In our current operations, and locations, the AR platform suffers the greatest due to location. Was the M9 so inferior that it needed the move before the primary weapons?


I will say this, in the field I have had less malfunctions with my M9 than I have with my AR. That I spend meticulous hours cleaning, to only have it foul up when I needed it the most???


I am in the market for a new update from my personal M9. It was the Glock 19 vs the P320........ Glock 19 won out in my book..

1) Modularity was the same between the 2
2) Parts and availability, WAY more Glock parts.
3) P320 is still in "Beta" testing...who knows what gremlins will show up, hate to be the first guy when I really need it to run into a problem (Yeah yea I know we have been using M11 for a while, but the GLOCK is so interchangeable)
3) Safety, Yes the Glock having only a trigger safety, unless I violate 1 of the 4 firearms safety fundamentals....well.... the trigger safety is more than enough that I need.


$575 for a Gen4 with 3 mags...... Gawt damn Im in!!!
Click to expand...

???? I paid a little over 400 with my military discount from a local gun store for a G19 gen 4 and 3 mags....Gun store is a Glock blue label dealership. Cheaper than the PX.....
 
BretJ said:
???? I paid a little over 400 with my military discount from a local gun store for a G19 gen 4 and 3 mags....Gun store is a Glock blue label dealership. Cheaper than the PX.....
Click to expand...

Retail, no discounts and a liberal @$$ state..... most other stores would be around $575 with just 1 mag.....
 
BretJ said:
???? I paid a little over 400 with my military discount from a local gun store for a G19 gen 4 and 3 mags....Gun store is a Glock blue label dealership. Cheaper than the PX.....
Click to expand...

yeah the blue label program is great if you are getting a common Glock. I waited 13 months for a blue Label 10mm. on the other hand, they had several G43 and G19 BL Glocks in stock.
 
Exactice said:
My useless Opinion.

Firearm needs and usages have changed dramatically, especially in the recent usages and conflicts.


The evolution of the pistol needs have changed by the ones operating it and the need was there.


The sad part was Berretta was not really given a chance. (sorta) as they were farming out their deals already, when they could have given the same guidelines to Berretta to modify the M9. (Current M9 A3) meets the requested specs, but it was too late the P320 got the contract.


Anyways.... that being said....


M9 was simple, accurate (overall weight) , double stack (Higher capacity)m, 9mm ("enough" caliber for a 2ndary weapon) , some what modular, to fit the needs of many (smaller grip but you can add on, men and women in the military)


During is service it served its purpose. But now the way we operate and our current needs of environment, we need to update the weapons.




3) Modularity, ok if you want to be a GQ, and add on laser, lights, night sights blah blah blah..... well thats on you, it makes it pretty.....

4) Rapid use, Firing techniques, weight etc etc.... lets face it, the M9 is heavy, bulky and surely needed an update.... BUT with that for an 9mm it was also very very accurate, with minimal training due to the heavier weight. Give a new shooter a M9 and a G43 and while the G43 may be comfortable, the M9 would be surely more accurate right off the bat. training over time anyone can be good with X weapon, but the M9 was a great grab and go. So its a toss up, Because of my training and knowledge of firearms, I would NOW appreciate a lighter pistol, BUT.....this is a contract for the Military, not a specs ops group. you need something that is comfortable and easy to use across the board.





Long drawn out?


Good move to the P320, Im sure, we needed a revamp.... I am concerned though. a pistol is supposed to be a "secondary" weapon. Why did we focus on this? Why not update the AR platform. those to me are primary soldiering weapons. In our current operations, and locations, the AR platform suffers the greatest due to location. Was the M9 so inferior that it needed the move before the primary weapons?


I will say this, in the field I have had less malfunctions with my M9 than I have with my AR. That I spend meticulous hours cleaning, to only have it foul up when I needed it the most???


I am in the market for a new update from my personal M9. It was the Glock 19 vs the P320........ Glock 19 won out in my book..

1) Modularity was the same between the 2
2) Parts and availability, WAY more Glock parts.
3) P320 is still in "Beta" testing...who knows what gremlins will show up, hate to be the first guy when I really need it to run into a problem (Yeah yea I know we have been using M11 for a while, but the GLOCK is so interchangeable)
3) Safety, Yes the Glock having only a trigger safety, unless I violate 1 of the 4 firearms safety fundamentals....well.... the trigger safety is more than enough that I need.


$575 for a Gen4 with 3 mags...... Gawt damn Im in!!!
Click to expand...

Couple comments to your post. Had to edit some of your to get mine to fit.
One it would be very hard to modify the M9 to the point it would have competed well against weapons like the sig or Glock. It's a large heavy all metal weapon. Not sure how they could have changed that without basically starting from scratch.

Next while I have always felt the M9 is an very accurate pistol it is not an easy one to master. The very long heavy trigger pull for your first shot takes a lot of practice to master, something the majority of the military outside of SOF simply won't and never will get. I feel that a striker fired pistol like a Glock is easier to get good with compared to having to learn to learn two completely different trigger pulls like an M9.

As to modularity while I don't feel that being able to change grips like a gen 4 Glock is really that big of a deal the ability to add a light and have sights that have tritium in them are mandatory in a actual combat pistol. When the majority of your work is done at night those two items are must haves.

Finally and not concerning the M9. The two single greatest issues facing the AR are worn out or crappy mags and way to many soldiers simply not knowing how to properly lubricant their weapon. An AR that is properly lubed and using good mags is an extremely reliable weapon. I have multiple trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan as first an 11B and now and 18C as well as multiple shooting schools where you shoot virtually non stop for 6 to 7 hours a day for weeks on end and and my M4 was always rock solid. The only weapon I would be willing to trade my M4 for in combat would be a H&K 416.
 
braindrain said:
Couple comments to your post. Had to edit some of your to get mine to fit.
One it would be very hard to modify the M9 to the point it would have competed well against weapons like the sig or Glock. It's a large heavy all metal weapon. Not sure how they could have changed that without basically starting from scratch.

Next while I have always felt the M9 is an very accurate pistol it is not an easy one to master. The very long heavy trigger pull for your first shot takes a lot of practice to master, something the majority of the military outside of SOF simply won't and never will get. I feel that a striker fired pistol like a Glock is easier to get good with compared to having to learn to learn two completely different trigger pulls like an M9.

.......
Click to expand...

We agree on many points, yes the M9 was a heavy weapon as I pointed out as well. with that being said, the military release a bid list to other companies that had the chance to release/build/design around the militares request. many of those notes were functionality. Which they did allow the M9 A3 a light of day, when they released it with a modular hand guard system, revised top slide safety and picatinny rail system on the lower. At that point it was too late as they had the P320 already in mind.

As for the single vs double action, again looking at the "general" use, I think this was a design function inherent to allow many types of novice shoots to still manipulate the firearms. The Glock as an example does not have a hammer system nor a double action trigger, the only way to get it to fire is to manipulate the slide. If you do not have the means to manipulate the slide (lose an arm, fingers hand etc), there is no way to really fire the weapon without "skill/practice" the double action and hammer system, circumvented this negative, finally was the safety of having a "decocking lever" much like the M11 that was in a testing faze. BUT and HUGE But..... that double action sucked period. and requires exactly as you stated, practice to master. I dont think the M9 was a master type weapon it was more of a "jack of all trades" meant for use for any type of shooter and I think it was pretty successful as that. So I completely agree with you... this is one of those cost vs reward situations.


modularity....Ill be honest, I have operated during night more times than not, Natural point of aim was more important than $75 night sights.....while they are all good.... wearing PVS 14 or worse PVS 7s, getting sights through those goggles were usless LOL.Im sure you know what I mean. So again night sights lights are all bonus, BUT not combat essential. Remember if you add a light to the front you now required soldiers to modify the holster systems and or some soldier with or without. The military likely needs conformity along the lines.....just a random point and not to discredit the need as I still do agree with you, just looking at it from a "bid" stand point.

Your final point to me is important. as it does question, M9 before the M4???, M4 mags could have been updated with proper followers/updated designed followers. The spring is the spring. The "stock" mag followers were the cause of many jams and this was an easy fix, all of my mags have replacement followers and now NEVER jam or get stuck like they used too. Lubricating weapons and maintenance, again I will say it, I have done it, but nothing will stop the fine dust/sand that eventually cakes your weapon, Even the Ma deuce, we had a can of breakfree on the turret, and spraying the $h!t out of the M2 while firing to keep it lubricated, no way I was going to do that or expect that on my M4. With that, I also carried an M25 sws. IT NEVER jammed on me ever due to its simple design...(M14 base)


The final kicker, as you stated, you would swap the M4 for a 416, the real only major difference, is the "Gas impingement system" vs "Gas Piston system" could we not just install gas piston systems to our current M4 gas impingement systems? To address the gas malfunctions as lets be realistic, half the malfunctions are due to the gas system?


Anyways, I totally agree with you on many many points, dont get me wrong. I am glad they did move to a new system so overall it was a GREAT thing..... I am just still questionable about our primary weapon. And the P320 is Awesome it really just comes down to preference now at this point.
 
Last edited:
Exactice said:
We agree on many points, yes the M9 was a heavy weapon as I pointed out as well. with that being said, the military release a bid list to other companies that had the chance to release/build/design around the militares request. many of those notes were functionality. Which they did allow the M9 A3 a light of day, when they released it with a modular hand guard system, revised top slide safety and picatinny rail system on the lower. At that point it was too late as they had the P320 already in mind.

As for the single vs double action, again looking at the "general" use, I think this was a design function inherent to allow many types of novice shoots to still manipulate the firearms. The Glock as an example does not have a hammer system nor a double action trigger, the only way to get it to fire is to manipulate the slide. If you do not have the means to manipulate the slide (lose an arm, fingers hand etc), there is no way to really fire the weapon without "skill/practice" the double action and hammer system, circumvented this negative. BUT and HUGE But..... that double action sucked period. and requires exactly as you stated, practice to master. I dont think the M9 was a master type weapon it was more of a "jack of all trades" meant for use for any type of shooter and I think it was pretty successful as that. So I completely agree with you... this is one of those cost vs reward situations.


modularity....Ill be honest, I have operated during night more times than not, Natural point of aim was more important than $75 night sights.....while they are all good.... wearing PVS 14 or worse PVS 7s, getting sights through those goggles were usless LOL.Im sure you know what I mean. So again night sights lights are all bonus, BUT not combat essential. Remember if you add a light to the front you now required soldiers to modify the holster systems and or some soldier with or without. The military likely needs conformity along the lines.....just a random point and not to discredit the need as I still do agree with you, just looking at it from a "bid" stand point.

Your finally point to me is important. as it does question, M9 before the M4???, M4 mags could have been updated with proper followers/updated designed followers. The spring is the spring. The "stock" mag followers were the cause of many jams and this was an easy fix, all of my mags have replacement followers and now NEVER jam or get stuck like they used too. Lubricating weapons and maintenance, again I will say it, I have done it, but nothing will stop the fine dust/sand that eventually cakes your weapon, Even the Ma deuce, we had a can of breakfree on the turret, and spraying the $h!t out of the M2 while firing to keep it lubricated, no way I was going to do that or expect that on my M4. With that, I also carried an M25 sws. IT NEVER jammed on me ever due to its simple design...(M14 base)


The final kicker, as you stated, you would swap the M4 for a 416, the real only major difference, is the "Gas impingement system" vs "Gas Piston system" could we not just install gas piston systems to our current M4 gas impingement systems? To address the gas malfunctions as lets be realistic, half the malfunctions are due to the gas system?


Anyways, I totally agree with you on many many points, dont get me wrong. I am glad they did move to a new system so overall it was a GREAT thing..... I am just still questionable about our primary weapon. And the P320 is Awesome it really just comes down to preference now at this point.
Click to expand...

the one advantage of a hammer driven DA like the Beretta is not the one handed nature-you still have to rack the slide to load the weapon whether its real double action, pseudo double action like the Glock (the pulling of the trigger actually slightly retracts the striker-for safety reasons) or real single actions (like the 1911)


that is the second strike capability Meaning if the first trigger pull doesn't set off the primer, you might well get it to fire with the second. When I was mugged, my SW DA didn't fire because the slide was slightly ajar or the CQ nature of the shooting retarded the hammer but I quickly pulled the trigger a second time and boom
 
TurtleDude said:
the one advantage of a hammer driven DA like the Beretta is not the one handed nature-you still have to rack the slide to load the weapon whether its real double action, pseudo double action like the Glock (the pulling of the trigger actually slightly retracts the striker-for safety reasons) or real single actions (like the 1911)


that is the second strike capability Meaning if the first trigger pull doesn't set off the primer, you might well get it to fire with the second. When I was mugged, my SW DA didn't fire because the slide was slightly ajar or the CQ nature of the shooting retarded the hammer but I quickly pulled the trigger a second time and boom
Click to expand...

Sorry for better clarification you are correct! I did have to add in the point of the de-cocking lever as well after the fact. Its a safety point.

If we do want to discuss the draw backs on it.... I will 100% agree with you, if the slide was slightly pushed back the firing pin would slightly rotate and not allow the weapon to fire, this was one of those "disarming" tricks that was a negative to the design of the weapon, where if you push the muzzle towards the hammer(towards the rear), and then grip the rotating release you can "remove" the whole top slide without getting shot.... pretty nuts and a movie trick I dont think I would ever do it in real life, but it is possible... period.

An example of Jet Li at his best (in Lethal Weapon 4) - YouTube

as for your point of the ability for follow up shots, exactly your/the point.... Again "if" a striker problem on a glock (honestly never had it happen), you would need to do the "tap and rack" were as a M9 quick double action follow up....without having to come off target.... meh, again I can live without it as well.... but again just looking at it from a military broad stand point.
 
Last edited:
Exactice said:
Sorry for better clarification you are correct! I did have to add in the point of the de-cocking lever as well after the fact. Its a safety point.

If we do want to discuss the draw backs on it.... I will 100% agree with you, if the slide was slightly pushed back the firing pin would slightly rotate and not allow the weapon to fire, this was one of those "disarming" tricks that was a negative to the design of the weapon, where if you push the muzzle towards the hammer(towards the rear), and then grip the rotating release you can "remove" the whole top slide without getting shot.... pretty nuts and a movie trick I dont think I would ever do it in real life, but it is possible... period.

An example of Jet Li at his best (in Lethal Weapon 4) - YouTube

as for your point of the ability for follow up shots, exactly your/the point.... Again "if" a striker problem on a glock (honestly never had it happen), you would need to do the "tap and rack" were as a M9 quick double action follow up....without having to come off target.... meh, again I can live without it as well.... but again just looking at it from a military broad stand point.
Click to expand...

a new brand of pistols-Honor Defense firearms, has a model designed to protect against pushing the slide backward by an adversary


hqdefault.jpg
 
Exactice said:
We agree on many points, yes the M9 was a heavy weapon as I pointed out as well. with that being said, the military release a bid list to other companies that had the chance to release/build/design around the militares request. many of those notes were functionality. Which they did allow the M9 A3 a light of day, when they released it with a modular hand guard system, revised top slide safety and picatinny rail system on the lower. At that point it was too late as they had the P320 already in mind.


modularity....Ill be honest, I have operated during night more times than not, Natural point of aim was more important than $75 night sights.....while they are all good.... wearing PVS 14 or worse PVS 7s, getting sights through those goggles were usless LOL.Im sure you know what I mean. So again night sights lights are all bonus, BUT not combat essential. Remember if you add a light to the front you now required soldiers to modify the holster systems and or some soldier with or without. The military likely needs conformity along the lines.....just a random point and not to discredit the need as I still do agree with you, just looking at it from a "bid" stand point.






Anyways, I totally agree with you on many many points, dont get me wrong. I am glad they did move to a new system so overall it was a GREAT thing..... I am just still questionable about our primary weapon. And the P320 is Awesome it really just comes down to preference now at this point.
Click to expand...


I agree with a lot of your post but a few things I do take issue with.

First racking the slide one handed is very easy and takes all of about 5 minutes to teach someone how to do it. And my personal opinion the odds of losing a hand and then having a malfunction that can be fixed my pullingbtye trigger again on a beretta are so rare it is not worth the price of the horrible trigger pull the M9 has.

Next our difference in opinion on the necessities of having a light and night sites may be more to do with the difference between mission set and training focus that we both probably had. For me every round that leaves the end of my weapon I am accountable for. Shooting of natural point of aim while moving in the dark simply does not cut it. At the shooting/cqb course I had to pass to do the current job I do getting caught not using your sights will get you saftery boarded and most likely dropped from the course. For the most part we are trained to look over the top of our nods not through them when shooting pistol at night using your light to id the target. Breaking light discipline is not really a concern if you are in a room with a guy trying to kill you and your M4 just went down.
As to the holster bit if you are getting a new pistol you will need a new holster anyway. So not really a concern.

Finally I think I may not have mentioned this but I actually do agree with you that there are a whole lot better places the Army could have spent this money on them a new pistol. Until the Army actually gets serious about training it's conventional force how to use a pistol it really doesn't matter what gun they have. And seeing as they can't even get the rifle marksmanship program squared away I don't see it happening any time soon. And the units that are training and using pistols the are not using M9s anyway. I have been issued Glocks for the greater part of a decade now.

That said the Army has updated the followers in their mags several times recently and the new ones are quite good. I still prefer Pmags and mostly just use them but the new Army mags are good to go. People just need to know when to throw them away.
You are right that eventually enough dust will stop a weapon from working but that is true for every weapon made. I have seen plenty of AKs and EBRs(M14s) go down as well. Being diligent on your wespoms maintenance and knowing how to properly lube your M4 and it will be ultra reliable.

The only reason I would prefer a 416 is because they run a bit better suppressed which is probably how I shoot about 90% of the time. Simply adding a gas piston system to an M4 can cause plenty of its own issues so I am not sure that is a good idea. Besides I have seen very very few malfunctions that were actually due to the gas system of an AR. Not sure how you were getting 50% of your malfunctions that way. I have been at the range shooting for multiple days in between cleaning my rifle and had it get so nasty inside that when you realeas the boot you need to press the forward assist to get the bolt to go into battery. And yet the weapon still fired and cycled just fine. And this is after shooting a thousand or two rounds in between cleanings. After shooting that iteration I simply add a few drops of oil directly to the bolt and the weapon runs fine the rest of the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom