# Beretta M9



## skeeter (Apr 30, 2008)

I recently read in latest edition of the American Rifleman that the Gov. gave Beretta something like a twenty year contract for the M9 pistol. What are some opinions on the M9?:uhh:


----------



## MFFJM091 (Apr 30, 2008)

Grip is too big for my small hands.  I have a XD45 that holds 13 rounds (three fewer than the 9mm) and fits my small hands much better.  I haven't had many jams with it and it is fairly accurate but there are much better pistols than the Beretta out there, IMO.


----------



## skeeter (Apr 30, 2008)

I like the Springfields,:) And with a .45 you really don't have to have those three extra rounds.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 30, 2008)

I wish we'd go to a .40 or .45

Did the article say it was a DoD contract, or just a government contract?


----------



## jordan (Apr 30, 2008)

skeeter said:


> What are some opinions on the M9?:uhh:



Its a POS. The big Army needs to invest in Sigs.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Apr 30, 2008)

jordan said:


> Its a POS. The big Army needs to invest in Sigs.



Dito. Somebody must have got some extra money back when they picked Berreta over Sig for a service pistol.


----------



## Lycurgus (Apr 30, 2008)

Sig all the way.  I hate berretas.


----------



## 8'Duece (Apr 30, 2008)

*A history of the Beretta M9*

I believe this thread requires a bit of history behind the the Beretta M9 (92fs). 

Personally I've found the Beretta to be one of the more accurate 9mm Lugers on the market. Is the grip too big ? I guess, if you've got small hands, but then again without the ability to change out backstraps and side panels I would venture to say any pistol issued to thousands and thousands of troops are going to have some grip and trigger complaints. 

Remember SOF Truth #1: Personell are more important than hardware. 

Think about it. 


By Tim Chandler

“You’re not a S.E.A.L. ‘till you have eaten Italian steel…” Anonymous 

Thus begins the sordid tale of the M9 that is oft repeated in gun shops and firearms related web-boards the nation over. Anyone who asks questions about the Beretta M9/92 pistol long enough will inevitably hear about how a bunch of S.E.A.L. team members were killed/maimed/deformed by the slides of the M9 pistol breaking in half and flying back at the shooter, decapitating many brave men . Or maybe you will hear about how the frames on the M9/92 pistols can shatter like plate glass if you shoot more than 1,000 rounds through them. I am sure there is somebody out there blaming the Titanic on a Beretta M9/92. 

As any experienced firearms enthusiast knows, rumors run WILD in the gun world. There are more silly fads and idiotic rumors in the gun culture than there are among pre-teen girls. Sometimes the bull flows so freely that a fellow needs hip waders and a lifejacket to keep from drowning in it. Some stories, however, are true or have at least SOME grain of truth to them. The trick is being able to wade through the baloney to find the truth. With this in mind, I decided to set out in search of actual proof of the M9/92 horror stories that so many recite so freely. 

The Saga Begins: 

In the early 1980’s the Military began looking for a new sidearm to replace the inventory of over 25 different pistols and revolvers then in service with the military, and the more than 100 different types of ammunition for those sidearms. Chief among the inventory of pistols to be replaced was the venerable old 1911 handgun that had been in service for 70 years. According to a Comptroller General’s report (PLRD-82-42) dated 3-8-82, the military had 417,448 .45 caliber pistols in inventory. The plan began to run into opposition when it was announced that the new sidearm would be chambered in the NATO standard 9mm cartridge. Many saw the move to a smaller caliber as a step in the wrong direction. Still others questioned the need for the adoption of a new pistol at all. According to PLRD-82-42, the General Accounting Office actually recommended purchasing more .38 caliber revolvers or converting the existing 1911 pistols to fire the 9mm round as a less expensive alternative to adopting a new weapon. 

The Army eventually made headway and in November of 1983 placed a Formal Request for Test Samples (FRTS) to several commercial arms makers in the US and around the world. Eight makers submitted a sample lot of 30 pistols by the deadline of January of 1984, and by August of the same year the testing was completed. (NSIAD-88-46) Of the eight makers who submitted test samples, 4 were technically unacceptable and 2 removed themselves from competition. The two surviving companies were SACO (importing Sig-Sauer pistols at the time) and Beretta. (NSIAD-88-46) After a controversial bidding process (some allege Beretta was tipped off about SACO’s bid so they could lower the per unit cost on their candidate by $1.00 and win the contract) the Army signed a contract with Beretta for 315,930 pistols. This number was later increased to 321,260 pistols. The new pistols would bear the military name of M9. (NSIAD-88-46) 

The Problems Arise: 

The M9 pistol program ran into trouble when in September of 1987 the slide of a civilian model Beretta 92SB pistol fractured at the junction where the locking block mates into the slide. The broken half of the slide flew back at the shooter (A member of the Navy Special Warfare Group) injuring him. (NSIAD-88-213) In January and February of 1988 respectively, 2 more military model M9 handguns exhibited the same problem, injuring 2 more shooters from the Navy Special Warfare Group. 

All three shooters suffered facial lacerations. One suffered a broken tooth and the other two required stitches. (NSIAD-88-213) 

The Army was doing unrelated barrel testing on current production civilian model 92SB pistols and military model M9 pistols and ran into the same slide separation issue. They fired 3 M9 pistols 10,000 times and inspected the weapons with the MPI process for evidence of slide cracks. They discovered that one of the weapons had a cracked slide. The Army then decided to fire all of the weapons until the slides failed. Failure occurred at round number 23,310 on one weapon, 30,083 on another, and 30,545 on the last weapon. (NSIAD-88-213) 

Examination of the NSWG slides and the Army slides showed a low metal toughness as the cause of the problems with slide separation. The Army then began to investigate the production process of the slides. (NSIAD-88-213) At the time the frames of the M9 pistols were produced in the US, while the slides were produced in Italy. There are reportedly documents from the Picatinny Arsenal that report a metallurgical study blaming the use of Tellurium in the manufacturing process for the low metal toughness of the Italian slides, but I have been unable to independently verify this information. 

After April of 1988, however, all slides for the M9/92 pistols were produced in the US. (NSIAD-88-213) As a part of the contract requirements, the Beretta Corporation had to build a plant inside the United States to produce the M9. It naturally took some time for the US plant (located in Accokeek MD.) to get into full production swing, so the Italian plant made the slides for a time. 

Several GAO reports and testimony from GAO staff before Congressional Sub-Committees (NSIAD-88-213, NSIAD-88-46, NSIAD-89-59 are a few…) report the total number of slide failures at 14. Three occurred in the field with the NSWG and the other 11 occurred in the test lab. Only 3 injuries resulted from the slide separation problem. The Beretta Corporation changed the design of the M9 pistol so that even if a slide fractured, the broken half could not come back and hit the shooter causing injury. 

Of the 14 slide separations reported, only 4 took place at round counts under 10,000. (NSIAD-88-213) No further slide fractures were reported after the change to the US manufactured slides. 

The Beretta Corporation initially blamed the slide failures on the use of ammunition. They questioned both the use of non-NATO ammunition and the use of M882 ammunition. They suspected that both types of ammunition caused excessive pressure buildup inside the weapon causing barrel ringing issues during the initial testing of the M9 weapon and the slide separations experienced by the military. The Army determined that both barrel ringing and slide separation were caused by low metal hardness and not by any specific pressure level in the ammunition used. (NSIAD-89-59) 

I have obtained documentation from a reliable source that demonstrates that the M882 ammunition was not excessive in its chamber pressures. Thus the explanation of metallurgical problems on a limited number of M9 pistols remains the only defensible conclusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another problem that cropped up with production of the M9 pistol was a problem with frame cracks. In December of 1987 and January of 1988 routine lot testing of the M9 production pistols revealed frame cracks occurring at the rear of the grip area of the frame just above where the trigger bar rides. The Army representatives determined that the cracks did not affect the safety, reliability, or function of the weapons and were merely “cosmetic in nature.” (NSIAD-88-213) 

The cracks, however, did violate the terms of the M9 contract, so the lots were rejected. Beretta continued production into February and March of 1988 with the affected frames, stockpiling them in hopes of a retrofit. In April of 1988 an engineering change was approved by Berretta and Army representatives that resolved the frame crack issues. The previously rejected lots were retrofitted with the new frame design and retested. The new frames did not display the cracking problem or any other problem during the tests and were subsequently accepted by the military. (NSIAD-88-213) There were 24,000 affected handguns produced with the defective frame. ALL of them were rejected and then retrofitted and accepted by the Army. (NSIAD-88-213) 

The Magazine Controversy 

Recent reports from Afghanistan and Iraq have reported less than satisfactory reliability with the M9 pistols traceable to the magazines. Until very recently, the magazines for the M9 pistol were produced by Mec-Gar. The military decided to go with another vendor, Checkmate, to supply the magazines for the M9. By all reports I have heard from the field, the new magazines are not made as well and are extremely sensitive to dirt and sand. Considering that the troops are using the M9’s in an area of the world that is populated by little else but dirt and sand, this makes the use of such magazines a bad idea. 

Many soldiers have “written home” to family and friends and have managed to obtain the original production magazines made by Beretta through back channels. (The original factory magazines are of superior quality to any others I have found.) Reports have been extremely positive with the use of the original style magazines. The military has enough knowledge to understand that magazines and ammunition are the most common causes of reliability problems, and so their purchase of magazines that are not as reliable as the original production magazines is puzzling. They should resolve this by going back to the Beretta production magazines, or at least back to the Mec-Gar produced ones as soon as possible. 

The 9mm Controversy: 

A great deal of the hostility aimed at the M9 pistol is the result of its use of the 9mm cartridge. The military stated that its goals in searching for a new standard sidearm were to improve effectiveness, reliability, safety, and operational suitability of the sidearm over the .45 caliber pistols and .38 caliber revolvers then in use. (NSIAD-89-59) 

Effectiveness is measured by range and accuracy, volume of fire, inherent lethality and lethality against body armor. Somehow the military’s study on the subject of effectiveness produced a proclamation that the 9mm NATO round was more accurate, had longer range and greater lethality inherently AND against body armor than the .45 caliber bullet. (There are some who believe this, and some who do not.) The method used to actually achieve these results is a shadowy combination of numerical calculations rather than on good hardcore scientific data like gelatin tests. (PLRD-82-42) The range and accuracy “tests” also seem to have been rigged in favor of the 9mm round by doing the measurements at 50 meters instead of 25. (The .45 caliber pistol’s sights were only regulated out to 25 meters…) It is a well known and documented fact that there are many .45 caliber 1911 pattern automatics that are capable of shooting 3” groups at 50 meters, thus one wonders how the military got the crazy idea that the .45 caliber bullet was not as accurate at that range. The idea that the 9mm NATO ball round hits harder at 50 meters than the .45 caliber round is also laughable. Certainly a 9mm weapon that can hold 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber has greater CAPACITY than the 7+1 round .45 caliber pistol, but whether or not that translates into greater “firepower” is a matter of debate. (Is it better to hit someone with 3 puny rounds, or 1 round that knocks them out of the fight?) 

The other measures are equally debatable. Is the M9 more reliable than the .45 caliber pistol? Well considering that many of the .45 caliber pistols in inventory had been in use through WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and that over 100,000 of them were no longer serviceable according to the military’s numbers, I am sure that a brand new pistol that had not suffered all of that abuse might indeed be a tad more reliable. (The fact that the .45 survived three nasty wars and became the favorite weapon of so many military and civilian shooters is a testament to how good a weapon it is.) 

Is the M9 safer than the .45 caliber pistol? The addition of a firing pin safety in the M9 pistol does add safety should the pistol be dropped. The long heavy double action trigger does make it harder to accidentally fire the weapon through negligence, but most will agree that relying on a long heavy trigger rather than proper training to keep accidents from occurring is a poor strategy for safety. One could also argue that the heavy DA trigger makes it harder to hit an intended target when you need to, increasing the odds of missing a threat in actual combat and thus making a soldier LESS safe than with the single action 1911 pistol. Not to mention that the weaker 9mm round would not be as effective at stopping the threat coming at you if you did manage to hit it. 

Another possible reason mentioned for adoption of the 9mm pistol was to make it more shooter friendly for small stature and female soldiers. While the 9mm is easier to control than the recoil of the big .45 caliber pistol, the Beretta 92 platform is ergonomically less than ideal for those smaller shooters. The wide grip and long trigger reach are WORSE for smaller shooters than the 1911 pistol with its short trigger and narrow grip. 

Conclusions 

The Beretta M9/92 pistol has been in service with our military for almost 20 years now. After the production problems documented previously were addressed, the pistol proved to be mechanically sound and reliable, enduring hundreds of thousands of rounds with little trouble provided proper maintenance was supplied. A redesign in the locking block of the M9 pistol made changes to that important piece less frequent, causing the pistol to require even less time at the armorer’s bench. 

The M9 is far from the perfect military sidearm. The 9mm ball ammunition that our troops must use in the M9 is a dismal man-stopper by most accounts. (Some disagree) The M9 itself is a large and heavy weapon for its job. (There are other 9mm pistols that hold more ammunition and weigh a fraction of what the M9 does.) The wide grip of the M9 is too big for many shooters, and the heavy double action trigger hinders accuracy. The Beretta M9’s competitor in the trials, the Sig-Sauer P226, suffers from the same hindrances of caliber, size and trigger pull. Many of the complaints against the M9 are the result of what it is: A 9mm double action pistol. Any 9mm DA pistol would get the same treatment. 

After the initial bugs were worked out, the M9 pistol developed into a reliable combat proven weapon. Most current/former military personnel that I have been privileged to speak with while researching this article have stated a general satisfaction with the weapon’s reliability while citing the concerns about the size, weight and caliber that I have mentioned already. It has saved the lives of soldiers, law enforcement officers and civilians alike over the years. It remains today an accurate and reliable weapon suitable for personal defense. Few military sidearms have proven themselves to be as good a weapon as the M9 has turned out to be, despite the gun shop gossip to the contrary. 

It remains worthy of our consideration when choosing a weapon. 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## jordan (Apr 30, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> It remains worthy of our consideration when choosing a weapon.



Opinion of course... 

If you like the firearm, than by all means.. more power to you.


----------



## 8'Duece (Apr 30, 2008)

jordan said:


> Opinion of course...
> 
> If you like the firearm, than by all means.. more power to you.



My opinion based on about 11 years of experience with the M9. 

Is it the perfect pistol ? Not by any means, but is it the worst ? not by any means also. 

I don't give much credit to users of the M9 that have not trained on it properly, or are using someone else crunch line just because they heard that some other pistol or caliber is better.  Plenty of the USANG guy's around here have never had a decent pistol course under their belts, yet they freely offer up that the Beretta is a POS.  Based on what ?? :uhh:

As the article lay's out, the mags are the most likely culprit of most malfunctions.  Just replace the Check Mate mags with factory or Mec Gar if the factory are not readily available. I use only Beretta marked factory mags and I have not had any problems with the Beretta through out the 11 years or so that I have owned it.  I've also replaced the recoil spring about every 3,000 rounds and did one total spring replacement at about 10,000 rounds, still no problems with the locking block or the slide. 

Is M882 ball ammo the best ? Not by a long shot, and I would agree that a larger caliber bullet in ball ammo is preferred, however, without proper training, the operator/soldier is just squeezing the trigger with little or no confidence in what he or she is doing.  *I'll take a guy that is 100% dead nuts on target with a Beretta 9mm anyday over a non trained soldier with a .357 Magnum.*

Is Sig the answer ? Maybe, but so is H&K, Glock, etc, but give the soldiers a new pistol and within 5 years you'll have the same displeasure with it as the Beretta seems to garner these day's.  As long as someone is coming out with a newer pistol, your old pistol just seems,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,old.


----------



## Cabbage Head (May 1, 2008)

I have a Beretta 92fs.  I like it. I find the double single trigger a little difficult at times but, I do like the weapon. 

There are problems with FMJ ammunition issued that I don't like.  However, there is a FMJ out there that will perform like a JHP. I think its Federal:uhh:.  They have an expanding FMJ (EFMJ) that will follow hollow points ballistics (or at least closely).

Its about shot placement and the performance of the round used.  If both are working together, you are more likely to have good results.  If not, then its up to the terminal ballistics of the round used to save the day.


----------



## The91Bravo (May 1, 2008)

Anyone have any idea how much the US pays for each weapon? I am curious.


----------



## 8'Duece (May 1, 2008)

Cabbage Head said:


> I have a Beretta 92fs.  I like it. I find the double single trigger a little difficult at times but, I do like the weapon.
> 
> There are problems with FMJ ammunition issued that I don't like.  However, there is a FMJ out there that will perform like a JHP. I think its Federal:uhh:.  They have an expanding FMJ (EFMJ) that will follow hollow points ballistics (or at least closely).
> 
> Its about shot placement and the performance of the round used.  If both are working together, you are more likely to have good results.  If not, then its up to the terminal ballistics of the round used to save the day.



The Corbon Powerball is essentially a EFMJ but with a polymer tip on the end that separates once tissue is struck. I'm sure there are others, just can't think of them off the top of my head at the moment.


----------



## WillBrink (May 1, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Few military sidearms have proven themselves to be as good a weapon as the M9 has turned out to be



Give it another 2-3 major conflicts and 90 years, and it may even approach the 1911...


----------



## WillBrink (May 1, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> The Corbon Powerball is essentially a EFMJ but with a polymer tip on the end that separates once tissue is struck. I'm sure there are others, just can't think of them off the top of my head at the moment.



Federal makes the  EFMJ that is a FMJ that acts like a JHP some police depts are using, but there is debate over the effectiveness of these rnds. They feed like FMJ, avoid the PC problems of "cop killer scarry JHP" and people living in areas with JHP bans, use them. See:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003530.html

It's an interesting bullet/concept, but my understanding is "real world" results have been lack luster.


----------



## jordan (May 1, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> *My opinion* based on about....




...rest my case.


----------



## WillBrink (May 1, 2008)

jordan said:


> ...rest my case.



Have you offered something beyond "Its a POS" opinion of this gun so far in the thread? At the end of the day, it all comes down to opinion. Informed opinion, based on experiences and research (hopefully) but still opinion. It's not my favorite gun either, and I would prefer a Sig, Glock, or HK if forced to use a DAO or DAO/DA gun, but would also take a 1911 over all of them....point being, seems to me 82d has offered some solid informed opinion with additional well researched and balanced article, which is about the best we can do.


----------



## Kurt V (May 1, 2008)

It's an "ok" pistol to me. I don't have large hands and it just doesn't feel good to grip. 1911 just works better for me.


----------



## skeeter (May 1, 2008)

Ya, it is understandable that most responses are opinion. Maybe I asked the wrong question. As I understand it the 9mm punches wholes but offers no knock down power. So why does the military keep using this round?               I guess it all comes down to the weapon is made by the lowest bidder within reason.:cool:


----------



## The91Bravo (May 1, 2008)

Here we go with the old 'knock down power' response in:

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

go


----------



## WillBrink (May 1, 2008)

The91Bravo said:


> Here we go with the old 'knock down power' response in:
> 
> 10
> 
> ...



I'm voting for changing from 9mm to LAW rocket.:doh:


----------



## AWP (May 1, 2008)

Getting gunners together is like mixing up Trekkies and Star Wars fans.

Han fired first, BTW.


----------



## skeeter (May 1, 2008)

I agree with WillBrink that it should be changed to a LAW


----------



## WillBrink (May 1, 2008)

skeeter said:


> I agree with WillBrink that it should be changed to a LAW



Let's get a petition going! :eek:


----------



## 8'Duece (May 1, 2008)

Knock down power to me is a relative term. 

When the LAPD where facing two guy's with full body armor and full auto AK's what did they do with the Beretta ? 

They continued, despite the recogntion of body armor, to take shots COM.  One well placed head shot would have ended that episode long before it became national news. Just an observation. 

With modern JHP's I don't think I'd like stand in front of 9mm Luger handgun in the hands of a well trained shooter. 

Also consider that .45 ACP 230 grain ammunition dumps 390Ft/Lps of energy to the target within 25 meters, while more modern 9mm luger higher pressured rounds are dumping close 500Ft/Lps of kenetic energy in the same distance.  I hate to see what two or three shots Corbon DPX or Ranger SXT 115 grain 9mm Lugers would to someones torso. 

Is the .45 ACP really the answer, conidering it has no chance of penetrating light body armor ??

My vote would go to the 9x23 or a 10MM cartridge for that purpose, assuming you can get troops trained properly with such powerful recoil response.


----------



## WillBrink (May 2, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Knock down power to me is a relative term.
> 
> When the LAPD where facing two guy's with full body armor and full auto AK's what did they do with the Beretta ?
> 
> They continued, despite the recogntion of body armor, to take shots COM.  One well placed head shot would have ended that episode long before it became national news. Just an observation.



On their radios, they were telling each other to shoot for the legs due to the body armor in hopes that would take them down I recall. They did have shotguns, and it always made sense to me they should have a box of slugs at least they can use under such conditions until the tac team shows up. That would be a an easy, fast, cost effective way to turn the tide a bit in such a fight. A slug may or may not go through the armor, but you will know you have been hit, which will keep your head down... For example, Hornady's has a slug H2K that delivers 2,664 ft/lbs. of muzzle energy. Armor or no, that's gonna get your attention...

Even better, why not simply give them a good sabot round? The Hornady makes  .45 caliber, 300 grain XTP-Mag sabot bullet flat to 200 yards. Now you have something with real "stopping power" for an emergency  situation like that, and don't scare the public by possibly issuing those evil black rifles, which cost $$$, and training. I know, simple, easy, cheap answers to problems is not in the lexicon on big PD departments and mil...


----------



## Hitman2/3 (May 2, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> I know, simple, easy, cheap answers to problems is not in the lexicon on big PD departments and mil...



You got that right, if it makes since, is cheap, and effective you won't find it in the mil or PDs.:)


----------



## skeeter (May 2, 2008)

As I understand it, the police changed to a round that is shaped like a hollow point ,but has a small spear inside to penetrate the body armor after the round cracks the plate in the armor.;)


----------



## WillBrink (May 2, 2008)

skeeter said:


> As I understand it, the police changed to a round that is shaped like a hollow point ,but has a small spear inside to penetrate the body armor after the round cracks the plate in the armor.;)



I had not heard that. As a shotgun rnd? Other? That's standard issue? Interesting. I had some clown on another forum say "I don't see the slugs keeping the BGs head down." To which I replied "then it will take their heads off instead." Under 100yards, slugs are no joke. Might be old school and old technology, but the laws of physics have no changed since I checked last time, unless we are getting into quantum mechanics...:)


----------



## skeeter (May 2, 2008)

I think that they are pistol rounds. You are right about the slugs inertia is a bitch!


----------



## MFFJM091 (May 2, 2008)

skeeter said:


> As I understand it, the police changed to a round that is shaped like a hollow point ,but has a small spear inside to penetrate the body armor after the round cracks the plate in the armor.;)



Are you referring to Hydra Shock rounds?


----------



## WillBrink (May 2, 2008)

MFFJM091 said:


> Are you referring to Hydra Shock rounds?



If that's what he means, they must be some LEO only rnd, as Hydra Shocks contain nothing like that to act on armor.


----------



## 8'Duece (May 2, 2008)

All in all the Beretta 92 (M9) straight out of the box new is a solid pistol. Just as solid and reliable as the Sig, Glock, and H&K.  I would not hesitate to be issued one or purchase another if I where to become a Sheriff's deputy or with my local PD Dept. 

I was dry firing mine last night with the Surefire Military series light on the rail and I still like the trigger just as much as my Sigs and a slight better than my H&K USP's. 

It's balanced well, and the trigger is not nearly as bad for me as some other pistols.  In fact it' even a bit better than the H&K USP trigger for it's easier to reach pull length than the H&K. 

POS ? Hardly, but then again if your issued one in the military it's probably at or near it's service life.  The military isn't good about keeping round counts and the conventional side of the forces seem to place it's importance on the far back burner of their weapons training doctrine. There's your problem in a nutshell.


----------



## pardus (May 2, 2008)

skeeter said:


> As I understand it, the police changed to a round that is shaped like a hollow point ,but has a small spear inside to penetrate the body armor after the round cracks the plate in the armor.;)



_The police_? 

All Police departments nation wide? :uhh:


----------



## RackMaster (May 2, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> _The police_?
> 
> All Police departments nation wide? :uhh:



  Just Team America: World Police!



> I'm so Ronery / So ronery / So ronery and sadry arone / There's no one / Just me onry / Sitting on my rittle throne / I work very hard to be number one guy / but, stiwr there's no one to right up my rife / Seems rike no one takes me serirousry / And so, I'm ronery / A rittle ronery / Poor rittle me / There's no one I can rerate to / Feewr rike a biwd in a cage / It's kinda siwry / but, not reawry / because, it's fiwring my body with rage / I'm the smartest, most crever, most physicawry fit / but, none of the women seem to give a shit / Maybe someday, they'wr awr notice me / And untiwr then, I'wr be ronery / Yeah, a rittle ronery / Poor rittle me...


----------



## WillBrink (May 2, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> _The police_?
> 
> All Police departments nation wide? :uhh:



As far as I know, major PDs use the basic ammo, most common being Spear Gold Dot, Winchester SXT, Federal, etc. like the rest of us, so I have my doubts on that one....


----------



## pardus (May 2, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> , so I have my doubts on that one....



You and me both, I'd like to see something to back a statement like that, Skeeter if you would be so kind.


----------



## skeeter (May 2, 2008)

Alright, like I said...it was explained to me. I don't know the name of the round, and I haven't had any first hand experience.  I was told that some major police units use these rounds. The person who explained it to me was a Ranger and is the gunsmith for my high school.:confused:  I was told that it was just some police departments. I was also told that it is a LEO thing only, and is not offered to civilians.


----------



## pardus (May 2, 2008)

I heard Elvis was the company spokesman for those rounds.


----------



## Frisco (May 2, 2008)

Probably the same rounds that killed Jimmy Hoffa..


----------



## JBS (May 2, 2008)

pardus762 said:
			
		

> _The police_?



I think the round is called the "Sting".


----------



## Kurt V (May 2, 2008)

Ok, let's hold off on the dogpile. Skeeter, most PD's are notoriously cheap. Even if there were a "special round" out there, they would probably be the last one to buy them.


----------



## JBS (May 2, 2008)

skeeter, are you certain you aren't perhaps describing several different types of rounds, together?

What you describe sounds like it might have been a combination of different rounds- perhaps from different weapons, including a _*flechette *_round

http://weapons.travellercentral.com/tech/flechette.gif

...and some types of hollow points

http://cartridgecollectors.org/22box/22sllr.jpg


----------



## Frisco (May 2, 2008)

Kurt V said:


> Ok, let's hold off on the dogpile. Skeeter, most PD's are notoriously cheap. Even if there were a "special round" out there, they would probably be the last one to buy them.



2X. .  I don't know that departments would spend money they already don't have on a round designed for armor when the the vast majority of LEOs would never need them..  :2c:  MAYBE for SWAT?? maybe.. any opinions on that?


----------



## HoosierAnnie (May 2, 2008)

C/Maj. Francisco said:


> 2X. .  I don't know that departments would spend money they already don't have on a round designed for armor when the the vast majority of LEOs would never need them..  :2c:  MAYBE for SWAT?? maybe.. any opinions on that?



For what it's worth, a gun shop here in Indy has in the past sold jackets (sports team logos) that came complete with body armor. Now admittedly, it wasn't mil grade.  But just knowing that the GB-ers in town could be sporting it, would make me want to choose my ammo carefully were I out there as a LEO on the Circle City streets.  Now that we have a former military man in the mayors office, things may be a lil different.  

I know there are a few of Indy's finest on the loop.  What say you guys??


----------



## pardus (May 2, 2008)

Sketter,  FYI, one thing we try to do here on SS is to back statements of fact up with links etc...

People say and hear a lot of things that are simply not true for whatever reason.

It is understood that it is not always possible to do this and in that case it should be stated that this is unsubstantuated (sp?) info.

It may seem a small point but people often read this board for information and we don't want 'facts' posted on here that cant be verified.


----------



## skeeter (May 2, 2008)

Alright, I after reading all the responses i'm going to say I am wrong, and that it doesen't exist. I'll be more careful with what I belive.  I just thought it was a neat concept.


----------



## pardus (May 2, 2008)

skeeter said:


> Alright, I after reading all the responses i'm going to say I am wrong, and that it doesen't exist. I'll be more careful with what I belive.  I just thought it was a neat concept.




The rounds may in fact exist and may be issued to _the police_ ;) but there is no evidence to back it up thus far.

Do some research ;)


----------



## skeeter (May 2, 2008)

I'll do my best to try and find something before I post it :doh:


----------



## JBS (May 2, 2008)

I hear alot of stuff that isn't accurate, too.  I think we all do.

Whenever I doubt the source, and still desire to discuss the subject, I do what pardus says to do; I state that the info is from a questionable source.

Many of the guys on these boards know these details first hand, and can rapidly confirm or deny the accuracy of said data.


----------



## skeeter (May 2, 2008)

The91Bravo asked earlier how much the DOD pays for a M9. The specs. are on the following as the Unit Replacement Cost in 1999, but I don't know if the price has changed since then.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m9.htm


----------



## skeeter (May 2, 2008)

Thanks for the hints.:)


----------



## pardus (May 2, 2008)

skeeter said:


> Thanks for the hints.:)



It's a good life lesson to ;)



JoeBlackSpade said:


> Many of the guys on these boards know these details first hand, and can rapidly confirm or deny the accuracy of said data.



I can with absolute certainty confirm Joe has a thing for corpolites


----------



## Rabid Badger (May 2, 2008)

Fairly certain this is the round you were talking about....

DoS in Iraq said 'no' to the use of these rounds.......I don't have the justification for the non-use descriptions by DoS.....but they also outlawed the use of smoke and grenades by contractors as well.

Let me just say that not everyone listened.....(the 'judged by 12' rule was in effect)

:2c:


----------



## JBS (May 2, 2008)

pardus762 said:
			
		

> I can with absolute certainty confirm Joe has a thing for corpolites



Ancient doo doo... it's the next big kink.


----------



## WillBrink (May 3, 2008)

razor_baghdad said:


> Fairly certain this is the round you were talking about....
> 
> DoS in Iraq said 'no' to the use of these rounds.......I don't have the justification for the non-use descriptions by DoS.....but they also outlawed the use of smoke and grenades by contractors as well.
> 
> ...



Do you have a brand name and or product # for those?


----------



## Rabid Badger (May 3, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Do you have a brand name and or product # for those?




Several different brands out there. Here's a few:

Hydra-shock:

http://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/item.asp?sku=00129PD9HS5H&frommissing2=yes

http://www.rrarms.com/catalog.php?prod=A23614

http://www.outdoorsuperstore.com/product.asp?prod=507410

These are slightly different (without the center post) but still expanding"

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2121902--mm-luger-ammunition.html


----------



## WillBrink (May 3, 2008)

razor_baghdad said:


> Several different brands out there. Here's a few:
> 
> Hydra-shock:
> 
> ...



OK, I must have missed a turn in the road some place. We were talking about some supposed Federal rnd that LAPD et all were using that defeated body armor, but the above are standard JHP for your major brands, none of which will defeat body armor. Did I miss a point/topic some where along the lines? Perhaps just good JHP some contractors are using vs standard military hard ball?


----------



## Rabid Badger (May 3, 2008)

only standard 9 ball was authorized for contractors.....

This ammo fits skeeter's descript is all.....center post may have been confusing as to 'driving thru' the body armor of the bad guys

That was my interpretation.... ;);)

I don't think there's a 9 ball round out there that's designed to defeat BA.....HS would be the closest I'd think.....

That's where maxcap mags come in handy....loaded with HS and precision shooting....

:2c:


----------



## WillBrink (May 3, 2008)

razor_baghdad said:


> only standard 9 ball was authorized for contractors.....
> 
> This ammo fits skeeter's descript is all.....center post may have been confusing as to 'driving thru' the body armor of the bad guys
> 
> That was my interpretation.... ;);)



Ah, got it, thanx. Post on the Federal might look cool, and it's old technology compared to newer and improved JHP, but it wont do jack on body armor...I didn't know contractors were held to the same ammo as mil. As non mil, I thought they could carry what ever the wanted to, as they do for weapons and such. Not that any of them would ever ignore the restrictions...:confused:


----------



## 8'Duece (May 3, 2008)

IMHO the two most hottest rounds going are the Corbon DPX and Ranger SXT ammuntion. Corbon uses some of the best powders and flash suppressants available with an all copper Barnes DPX bullet. You don't have to worry about penetrating windshields should the nead arise to do so. 

Winchester Ranger SXT's are just flat out nasty if your on the business end of one their rounds. Once it expands, it's like a fleshet round. Very popular within LEO circles at the moment.


----------



## WillBrink (May 3, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Winchester Ranger SXT's



That's what I generally carry. ;)


----------



## 8'Duece (May 3, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> That's what I generally carry. ;)



I wouldn't have doubted it. ;)


----------



## DoctorDoom (May 18, 2008)

Ok, question.  Flechettes, sabots... high velocity, armor piercing, and very expensive, but how do they do in terms of energy transmission and killing?  Seems to me they wouldn't fragment or tumble, and so would not be good in every situation. 

I noticed something from the non-combat arms side of the Army; the M9 is easy to use and and easy to control with little training.  Doctors with little training could shoot relatively accurately inside of 30 minutes.  Not so with the .45.  That argues favorably for the M9 as an Army-wide weapon.  Besides, all those fancy specialized pistols cost so damn much there's no way to pay for them, and no reason to issue them Army wide.  Specialized procurement for HSLD units seems to work just fine (and might be worth expanding to more combat arms units as policy), and the M9 as a basic issue weapon works well also.  I have limited experience but it's not a bad weapon, even if it is not the finest pistol available.  Remember, this is Big Army doing the purchasing on a massive scale, for a variety of forces and levels of training, not a trained competitive shooter buying for one person with a specific purpose.


----------



## JBS (May 18, 2008)

Excellent points made.

One of the things I learned before becoming a close combat instructor is that a hand-to-hand combat system has little value to the military if it cannot be taught, learned, retained, and readily applied in a reasonable amount of time.

I relate that to your point on the M-9, because it IS very simple to learn the basics, and apply (and retain) them, and hence appropriate for wide-scale deployment.


----------

