TOTD: Which gun should Big ARMY/FBI select?

There is something wrong with my brain. I can't get the idea of them switching to a 40mm pistol out of my head. Take the stock off a M320. I know it is wrong but it feels so right. 

I saw a few MP's and CID personnel in Pirmasens, Germany that had Sig M11's as an Army brat. That's it. Wasn't real common, but a few did have them.

Just wondering how common they were in other places/other branches. It seems like there's a difference between what equipment is actually issued and what is supposed to be issued.


Probably in some cases cause dudes are grabbing shit.

The 'Ooohh, that's shiny...gotta have it' syndrome exists everywhere.

Those were the only ones around when I was in. 
Are there other models available now?

No, M9s weren't our primary weapons. I was assigned as a M60 gunner because I was one of the few who didn't bitch like a little girl about it. However, I qualified with the M9 as did almost everyone else. We had a weird unit for the Air Force, we were one of the few combat MOSs. It was us, the PJs and the SPs. I also qualified with the M249, M16, M4, and EOD/Blowing shit up with C4.
About the only time we had M9s is when we were overseas in plain clothes because of the general political atmosphere.

Like. Make mine a G series.

I think you are right, but I think they will go for the M9A3 to save money, keep the magazines, parts and tools they already use. Isn't that how the rug was pulled out from under the rifle trials? Just made a few upgrades to the M4 that show an improvement that is a whole lot cheaper than a brand new rifle/pistol.

I have always been on the fence about buying my own Beretta, but if they do adopt the A3 I may get the civilian equivalent. The M9 has never really appealed to me enough to buy one but the A3 is kinda hawt and I already have a shit ton of mags and holsters laying around that I don't use outside of work.

That's probably what will happen.

Seems like that's what the Military always does. They compile these lists of everything they want in a piece of equipment and then they just go with a slightly updated version of what they already have. They'll meet almost none of the criteria listed from a study that cost $23 million to compile and call it a day.


I had a Beretta 92FS for several years and I actually thought it was a pretty good pistol. I mean it's big for a 15 rd 9mil and it's not exactly state of the art, but they work pretty well.

I traded a beat up Sig 226 for that barely used Beretta 92FS in '95-'96 and then sold it 10 years later to fund either another BHP or a CZ-75 (don't remember which). Personally thought both the CZ-75 and the BHP beat out the Beretta on ergo's, size and accuracy though. Reliably was great in the Beretta and about the same. So I can see Mil personnel getting a Beretta due to nostalgia from their time in the service, they do work when not beat up.

I wasn't having to share it with anyone though. It was mine, all the mags I owned were bought brand new from the factory and I actually took care of it. They actually work pretty well when that's done.

IMHO I believe most of the dislike for the Beretta's use in the Military stems from three areas :
1) The tendency of the Military to hang onto equipment and gear way past it's service life. If something's wore out get rid of it.

This pic pretty much sums up their tendency towards hanging onto wore out equipment in a single view.



ARF . Com - 'My barrel fell off' (*Click*)

An extreme example, but still.

2) From what I understand just after the turn of the century the Military bought a bunch of mags from Airtronic and Checkmate for the M9 that were substandard and that didn't work. I'm sure most everyone has heard the stories of soldiers in the early part of Iraq being issued an M9, having all kinds of problems with the mags and then asking family members state-side to pick them up some Mec-Gar mags and ship them to Iraq. Then despite the fact that the mags were destined for Military use those personnel were getting stuck with being mailed 10 round mags because the AWB hadn't ended yet at that point ('03 and '04) and their family/friends were buying as civilians. 10 rds out of a working pistol is better than 15 from a non-functional pistol.

How true that story is of family members and friends shipping mags off to individual Soldiers/Airman/Marines/Sailors and how widespread it was I don't really know. However I heard various versions of that same story over and over again. None of my buddies in the Military liked the thing and most have mentioned the issued mags in the very next sentence.

3) 9mm ball that's used because of the Hague Convention and which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. In the 9mm's defense .45 ball doesn't work much better. They don't all fall to .45 hardball in spite of the WWII Medal of Honor citation for Sgt. Thomas Baker (*Click*).

The prohibition on expanding ammo has always been stupid as fuck to me. It's okay to blow the legs off enemy soldiers or to burn them alive with white phosphorous or a flame thrower but they can't use hollow points or soft points that make the wound channel slightly bigger?

If I could pick one of the better pistols out there for Military use instead of what I think that they'll just end up with because of the already purchased accessories, mags, holsters and political considerations to go along with it I'd go with the CZ 75 SP-01 Tactical (steel) or the CZ 75 SP-01 Phantom (poly). Afterall, the Czech Republic is part of NATO now. It's not like they're still God-less Communists. Then I'd end the prohibition on JHP ammunition, buy 19 rd Mec-Gar mags that work, include a Surefire light and a short/lightweight Gemtech Aurora suppressor with each one, have tritium front sights and a blacked out rear sight, require a 3-day pistol course with Gunsite or Thunder Ranch level of instruction and call it done.

None of that shit is going to happen though.