thedrifter
06-18-03, 06:17 AM
How to Save the M9 Beretta
By Aaron P. Johnson
The M9 Beretta 92SF military sidearm as employed by the U.S. Army is a failure, as we have seen in after-action reports from both Afghanistan and Iraq. Its operation is unreliable and its ammunition seems to annoy the target on contact rather than killing him.
Although changing over to a .45-caliber platform (either an updated 1911, or a newer design like the Hechler & Koch USP with higher magazine capacity) would seem logical and desirable to those on the ground, we have to face the fact that it is not realistic. No matter what you say, and no matter how glaringly obvious the problem is, the Army is not going to be strong-armed into scrapping an entire weapons system in which it has so heavily invested itself for this long, and go searching for another.
The Beretta 92SF has not had the shortfalls in civilian use encountered by the military, and when compared to how it is employed by law enforcement in the streets of the United States, I think it becomes clear why.
First and foremost is the 9-mm. ammunition. The military employs the simple jacketed ball round (FMJ) as its pistol combat load, just as it does on the target range. The 9-mm. round is a fast-mover by comparison with other pistol rounds, usually running between 1,100 to 1,300 feet per second (fps) when it clears the muzzle, and has a good flat trajectory. By comparison, a standard .45-caliber round flies at only between 750-950 fps. Longtime shooters can tell you that on a sunny day, with the light at the proper angle, you can actually see the .45 round with the human eye from behind the pistol for a fraction of a second as it moves downrange.
But a 9-mm. ball-round moving at that faster speed just drills a hole straight through the enemy as it does with paper, with a narrow wound channel not much wider than the bullet itself. In the heat of battle, an enemy could be unaware that he had even been shot. The 9-mm. ball ammo is great for drilling paper, but not good for knocking down people. So what can the Army do?
Civilian law enforcement agencies learned this lesson through street gunfighting years ago, before automatics were even widely being used yet. Most law enforcement agencies today field jacketed hollow-point (JHP) ammunition (SPEER Gold Dot JHP’s are common). Law enforcement officers don’t generally have crazed religious fanatics wanting to die in Jihad – and high on khat – to deal with. But by comparison, there’s not much difference between that and a criminal out of his mind on cocaine or PCP.
Someone on PCP can take an entire basic load of ammo in 9-mm. ball and keep coming full speed. They are super-human strong, and feel no pain or fear. But a police 9-mm. sidearm, Beretta or otherwise, shooting a Gold Dot hollowpoint round will put down whoever it hits. The Gold Dot hollowpoint in 9-mm. will expand almost to the diameter of a .45 round, but is moving considerably faster and transferring kinetic energy into the body much more efficiently. With its flat expanded face and jagged edged petals, it stops in the body, transferring all energy into ripping open a wide wound channel. As it spins, its jagged edged expanded petals act like a blender as they rip through internal organs.
Police agencies still use the cheaper ball ammunition for range training. It flies straight and any recoil difference isn’t generally noticeable compared to duty ammo.
Simply issuing separate combat ammunition, as is done with larger weapons like the M2 .50-cal, 25-mm. Bradley cannons and others, will solve the problem without having to decommission hundreds of thousands of pistols, which we know the Army isn’t going to do. The cheaper ball ammo now in service can be kept and restricted to training.
Instead of an entire ammunition changeover along with the fielding of a new pistol, the Army merely has to acquire the new ammo to be issued out for real-world ops. The stopping problem will then be solved.
Another problem involves the military-issued magazines. Why, if a police pistol magazine can stay fully loaded all but one or two days out of a year, and still retain spring tension, should military magazines be failing when they spend most of their time unloaded in an arms room?
The answer is because the U.S. military is not getting the same magazines armed professionals in the civilian world are using. Anyone who owns a personal Beretta or is issued one by a law enforcement agency can compare the magazines to military magazines and see the difference in workmanship.
Either the magazines are being manufactured by Beretta to a lower standard for the military in order to rake in bigger profits, or Beretta isn't making them at all. I don't know which is the case, but I can tell you from experience with the military M9 and with a Beretta I purchased as a gift to my sister, there is a significant difference.
When Beretta first supplied the Army with its first M9s, the Army did stress-fire tests and noticed after extensive firing that hairline cracks developed in the slide. Beretta had streamlined (i.e. taken shortcuts) its assembly process for the Army’s order to meet time constraints and increase profits. They were caught and had to go back and do it right. One thing missed was the magazines. The Army needs to go back and demand higher specs for the M9 magazines, specifically the springs, or begin procuring them somewhere else.
As Col. David Hackworth pointed out in his “Open Letter to Members of Congress” (DefenseWatch, July 2, 2002), the M9 needs to be fired nearly dry, and even then has stoppages due to sand and grit. That is interesting because law enforcement agencies that went to the Beretta years ago, did so precisely because it’s designed against feed malfunctions. And it is not kept “dry” when on duty in the streets. So what gives? Faulty lubricants issued to soldiers are another concern, although a separate issue from the mechanical and ballistic shortcomings of the M9.
I think these key issues, if addressed, can reduce or eliminate almost all of the complaints surrounding the M9’s performance in combat. More than eliminate complaints, I think they will also save lives.
These solutions will ruffle some feathers, but are much less painful, and therefore
easier for the military to accept than having to scrap the entire M9 inventory completely and having to acquire a new sidearm and a new ammunition supply.
Aaron P. Johnson is a sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserve and is a uniformed officer with the Seattle Police Department. He made foreign deployments to the Middle East, Albania, the former Yugoslavia and Korea during seven years on active duty as a U.S. Army combat engineer. He can be reached at MineStrike@hotmail.com.
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
By Aaron P. Johnson
The M9 Beretta 92SF military sidearm as employed by the U.S. Army is a failure, as we have seen in after-action reports from both Afghanistan and Iraq. Its operation is unreliable and its ammunition seems to annoy the target on contact rather than killing him.
Although changing over to a .45-caliber platform (either an updated 1911, or a newer design like the Hechler & Koch USP with higher magazine capacity) would seem logical and desirable to those on the ground, we have to face the fact that it is not realistic. No matter what you say, and no matter how glaringly obvious the problem is, the Army is not going to be strong-armed into scrapping an entire weapons system in which it has so heavily invested itself for this long, and go searching for another.
The Beretta 92SF has not had the shortfalls in civilian use encountered by the military, and when compared to how it is employed by law enforcement in the streets of the United States, I think it becomes clear why.
First and foremost is the 9-mm. ammunition. The military employs the simple jacketed ball round (FMJ) as its pistol combat load, just as it does on the target range. The 9-mm. round is a fast-mover by comparison with other pistol rounds, usually running between 1,100 to 1,300 feet per second (fps) when it clears the muzzle, and has a good flat trajectory. By comparison, a standard .45-caliber round flies at only between 750-950 fps. Longtime shooters can tell you that on a sunny day, with the light at the proper angle, you can actually see the .45 round with the human eye from behind the pistol for a fraction of a second as it moves downrange.
But a 9-mm. ball-round moving at that faster speed just drills a hole straight through the enemy as it does with paper, with a narrow wound channel not much wider than the bullet itself. In the heat of battle, an enemy could be unaware that he had even been shot. The 9-mm. ball ammo is great for drilling paper, but not good for knocking down people. So what can the Army do?
Civilian law enforcement agencies learned this lesson through street gunfighting years ago, before automatics were even widely being used yet. Most law enforcement agencies today field jacketed hollow-point (JHP) ammunition (SPEER Gold Dot JHP’s are common). Law enforcement officers don’t generally have crazed religious fanatics wanting to die in Jihad – and high on khat – to deal with. But by comparison, there’s not much difference between that and a criminal out of his mind on cocaine or PCP.
Someone on PCP can take an entire basic load of ammo in 9-mm. ball and keep coming full speed. They are super-human strong, and feel no pain or fear. But a police 9-mm. sidearm, Beretta or otherwise, shooting a Gold Dot hollowpoint round will put down whoever it hits. The Gold Dot hollowpoint in 9-mm. will expand almost to the diameter of a .45 round, but is moving considerably faster and transferring kinetic energy into the body much more efficiently. With its flat expanded face and jagged edged petals, it stops in the body, transferring all energy into ripping open a wide wound channel. As it spins, its jagged edged expanded petals act like a blender as they rip through internal organs.
Police agencies still use the cheaper ball ammunition for range training. It flies straight and any recoil difference isn’t generally noticeable compared to duty ammo.
Simply issuing separate combat ammunition, as is done with larger weapons like the M2 .50-cal, 25-mm. Bradley cannons and others, will solve the problem without having to decommission hundreds of thousands of pistols, which we know the Army isn’t going to do. The cheaper ball ammo now in service can be kept and restricted to training.
Instead of an entire ammunition changeover along with the fielding of a new pistol, the Army merely has to acquire the new ammo to be issued out for real-world ops. The stopping problem will then be solved.
Another problem involves the military-issued magazines. Why, if a police pistol magazine can stay fully loaded all but one or two days out of a year, and still retain spring tension, should military magazines be failing when they spend most of their time unloaded in an arms room?
The answer is because the U.S. military is not getting the same magazines armed professionals in the civilian world are using. Anyone who owns a personal Beretta or is issued one by a law enforcement agency can compare the magazines to military magazines and see the difference in workmanship.
Either the magazines are being manufactured by Beretta to a lower standard for the military in order to rake in bigger profits, or Beretta isn't making them at all. I don't know which is the case, but I can tell you from experience with the military M9 and with a Beretta I purchased as a gift to my sister, there is a significant difference.
When Beretta first supplied the Army with its first M9s, the Army did stress-fire tests and noticed after extensive firing that hairline cracks developed in the slide. Beretta had streamlined (i.e. taken shortcuts) its assembly process for the Army’s order to meet time constraints and increase profits. They were caught and had to go back and do it right. One thing missed was the magazines. The Army needs to go back and demand higher specs for the M9 magazines, specifically the springs, or begin procuring them somewhere else.
As Col. David Hackworth pointed out in his “Open Letter to Members of Congress” (DefenseWatch, July 2, 2002), the M9 needs to be fired nearly dry, and even then has stoppages due to sand and grit. That is interesting because law enforcement agencies that went to the Beretta years ago, did so precisely because it’s designed against feed malfunctions. And it is not kept “dry” when on duty in the streets. So what gives? Faulty lubricants issued to soldiers are another concern, although a separate issue from the mechanical and ballistic shortcomings of the M9.
I think these key issues, if addressed, can reduce or eliminate almost all of the complaints surrounding the M9’s performance in combat. More than eliminate complaints, I think they will also save lives.
These solutions will ruffle some feathers, but are much less painful, and therefore
easier for the military to accept than having to scrap the entire M9 inventory completely and having to acquire a new sidearm and a new ammunition supply.
Aaron P. Johnson is a sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserve and is a uniformed officer with the Seattle Police Department. He made foreign deployments to the Middle East, Albania, the former Yugoslavia and Korea during seven years on active duty as a U.S. Army combat engineer. He can be reached at MineStrike@hotmail.com.
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: