23 Sept 03

M9 pistol (Beretta 92F)

There is much stirring recently within the USMC and several other serious military units with regard to the 9mm M9 pistol, which displaced the 45ACP 1911 pistol back in 1985. In the intervening eighteen years, the M9 pistol has gained the dubious title of the most disliked, most disparaged, most unpopular firearm ever issued to American soldiers since the discredited French CSRG (Chauchat) light machine gun was foisted upon American soldiers in WWI.

I remember the JSAPS project that selected the M9. The M9 was supposed to supersede all other pistols, so there would be only one pistol in the entire military system. The move to 9X19mm caliber was preordained, since that is the pistol caliber that was (and still is) used by our NATO allies. The fact that US soldiers had a separate pistol caliber was never an issue during WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. But, by 1985 this discrepancy apparently became intolerable, at least in the minds of "one-world" politicians.

The cover story was that the Beretta pistol outperformed all others during tests. The real reason was, of course, the Italians wanted to sell us expensive guns and also get a manufacturing foothold on US soil. So, they threatened to close our air bases in Italy if we didn't buy their overpriced pistols. In other words, the "selection process" was politically influenced, as it is for most other military equipment.

In any event, eighteen years later, the M9 has shown itself to be reliable, but not durable. Parts breakage is the big problem. Thus, keeping them running is the real issue, particularly when they are fired a lot. The pistol is big, fat, bulky, and not suitable for concealed carry, as is often a requirement these days, even for soldiers. The system for operating the two-stage decocking lever is surely learnable, but, as we all know, the Army is afraid of guns, indeed petrified of loaded guns, so soldiers (even officers) are commanded never to load the pistol anyway. Smart ones ignore such stupid orders, get competent training (outside the military), and then carry their pistols loaded anyway, as I have reported.

So legion have been the complaints about the M9, that SIG pistols have now made their way into the system, and even 1911 pistols (in 45ACP) can be seen in the hands of certain elite units that have enough political autonomy to ignore orders to use only issue gear. We're now back to multiple pistols, the exact thing the JSAPS project was designed to end forever.

Suggested solutions range from dumping pistols altogether and issuing short rifles instead, to returning to the 1911. Neither extreme is likely to see the light of day. Indeed, there is a movement within the USMC to return to the M14 rifle and the 308 round, and, though I am in sympathy, that probably won't happen either. As I have reported, the American military is getting a new rifle caliber (6.8mm) and a new rifle to shoot it. We may end up with a new pistol also, probably in 40S&W caliber.

In the interim, we all need to understand this: We don't carry pistols, because they're effective. We carry pistols, because they're convenient. If they are inconvenient (bulky, hard to operate), the point would appear to be lost. We carry pistols as a deterrent against unexpected threats. We carry rifles when we are facing expected threats. Rifles are not convenient to carry, nor are they concealable, if you add "ineffective" to that list, once again, the point would appear to be lost.

Pistols need to be convenient and concealable, marginally effective. Rifles are going, of necessity, to be inconvenient, so they need, at least, to be effective. It's a simple formula. One can only wonder why the American military bureaucracy, after all these years, still can't seem to get it.

/John