Modular Handgun System discussion

I like the m9 a lot, just ordered one actually
Been proven to shoot 7000 rounds with no stoppages, the military ones have had far more than that and aren't taken care of.
The open top design for the ejection, similar to the vz58, prevents jamming.
Inb4 cracked slides, those were with over pressured ammo out of NATO spec
Just a smexy gun all around.

>>31024641
The M9 has earned a bad rap for several reasons

>Some were Sig fanboys that got butthurt the P226 lost
>Likewise 45/1911 fanboys got butthurt the 1911 went away
>Early slides could crack, although it was rare
>Poor maintenance on M9s
>Poor training on guns
>Sand is not kind to the M9, especially the mags

Go watch some torture tests, the 92 platform performs ridiculously well in many circumstances, although as mentioned, sand can cause it to malfunction.

If you like the 92 then get it. I think it's the best value for a 9mm out there and is decently customizable and very accurate.

The only real valid argument against it is the grip is pretty large. It fits my hand comfortably, but I would say most men under 5'10" (read: manlets) think it's too large.

It's being replaced because the military wants something more modern. They want things like a polymer frame, striker fired, modular grip, threaded barrel, less parts, replaceable sights, pic rail, etc. (no, they didn't specifically mention all those features, but let's not kid ourselves)

Beretta mostly addressed the qualms of the M9 with the M9A3 and proposed it but the military shot it down right away. To me it sounds like they want to move away from the M9 entirely (probably the stigma and gun size), even though going with the M9A3 would be more cost effective-- that's if congress allows them to go to a new handgun in the first place. The need for a new handgun isn't seen as necessary, only special operations tend to even use handguns in the first place, and they tend to use whatever they want anyway if they don't use the M9.

>>31024641
Idk I think I remember reading like some sort of data on what soldiers thought about their weapons like in Iraq and shit vs back home and most of the deployed guys didn't like it too much for reliability and most of the state siders thought it was fine
This was a few years back tho and I have no source so I could be talking out my ass

When I was young and ignorant I bought into the "berettas are shit" meme, then I deployed in 2009. Came back on leave and bought one. Great pistols.

I want one. I'd love to have a 92G-SD. They are known to be incredibly durable, reliable, and accurate. I think that any gun that has been used for three decades by the military will incidents.

>>31025154
NATO spec covers up to 9mm +p+++you stupid faggot

One of my favorites. Never had a jam, ever. Will shoot anything I feed it. I have a 92fs made in Italy. IMO Italian made 92fs is better than US made. Don't really know what they would replace it with......

>>31028081
Forgot to ad, I gave my dad one because he needed a reliable 9mm. Damn fine handguns.

>>31024641
>M9
>Replaced
Wew

They aren't going anywhere. Firearm trials never go anywhere. Name a single time the US adopted a firearm that filled the same mechanical or tactical niche? There has to be a significant improvement or doctrinal shift to make retraining and repurchasing make sense. This is why the M16 will never die. As long as 5.56 and 9mm are NATO standard, we'll be using the m9.

>>31028135
This study will be comparatively complex. They are actually looking at ammo as well. The army is adopting a ballistics test similar to the FBIs but much more geared towards penetration. We could actually see the 9mm go away. Off the top of my head, I think the test is at 50m into 20% ballistics gel. I think the FBI's is at 10m into 10% gel. I am not positive on either figure though.

>>31028986
>That face when the next standard issue sidearm for the United States Military is the Deagle brand Deagle, chambered in .50 African/Arab Eliminator

>>31027702
Source?