Firearms Talk banner
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
Discussion starter · #21 ·
I just received a private communication this morning from an active duty Army soldier who shared his experiences with the M9. Basically, it all comes down to how well they are being maintained. He was issued one recently that had a barrel that moved so much he could get no better than an 8" group at 10 yards. He turned it in, was issued one with no "wobble" and got a good consistent 2" group at 10 yards, etc.
 
I own a M-9 and like it very much but I don't seem to shoot it as well as my other guns....though I tend to blame "operator error" as opposed to the gun. I do not like the trigger but I still like the gun and shoot well enough with it to suit me and it is a fine looking specimen!
 
Discussion starter · #23 ·
Thanks, Mouser, that's interesting to hear. I think everyone has to really check out a variety of firearms to determine which gun is best for them.
 
I never really bought into that theory in the first place. However, for the purpose of busting the myth, I would have preferred to see a more conclusive method used.
First, what is the expected level of accuracy? It's a milspec pistol. I'm certain there is an expected standard of accuracy it must achieve IAW DoD contract guidlines. I would assume it to be a specified group size group at a standard distance with a specified ammunition.
In other words: Just how accurate was it designed/required to be? Does your particular example meet the established standard? Does that established standard meet your particular standard of "accurate?" How about that of the general shooting public?
Bonus question: How do the results compare to similar pistols (CZ Sig etc.)?
Until we have an average group size to compare to a set standard, we won't really know.

To be fair, I do believe that it is more accurate that many people give it credit for, but then most quality pistols are.
If it didn't live up to any of the DoD guidelines, they most likely never would have purchased it.

That said, the reason military and police are given training on how to properly use firearms is so they can become accurate with them. No matter how accurate a gun is designed to be, if you don't know how to shoot properly, you wouldn't hit the side of a barn.

As stated by Therewolf, Hollywood is to blame for most people believing it's accuracy sucks. Because we all know that you can shoot a person on a rooftop some 600 years with a handgun and get a head shot every time... :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: sambob
Now, I have heard reports about the questionable quality control of the M9, especially during the 90s in the desert. But this is a different topic on the gun. Is this another "myth" to examine? I did find this report on the slides. Baretta and the Army seem to blame each other...
Most of the issues with the M9 and M16 in the desert were from not properly maintaining them (Jessica Lynch proves this).

I was in the Army for too long, and have seen both newer and much more experienced soldiers not take care of their weapons... and it really doesn't take much to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sambob
I had a hard time shooting mine well for some reason...maybe the grips, sights, trigger with lots of take up...but last time I shot it, I did fairly well with it...not helicopter or smiley face worthy but decent for me...I guess I'll keep it! I bought the M9 civilian version and got several extra mags with it too....I'm thinking turkey season will be over here in Alabama in a few weeks...I think I'll take it out of the safe and work it out again!
 
i really like the Beretta Model 92's and 96's. great pistols. if i didn't have long fingers, the grips would be a little too big, even for me. the grip area is a bit on the thicker side, and i can see for some with smaller hands, they could be a bit difficult to hold and shoot accurately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJF22553
The important accuracy issue with my 92FS is that it is capable of shooting better than I am. It has good sights, good trigger and it feels good in my hand. Any time that I don't shoot it well, I need to be looking at me, not the piece.

When I took my NRA trainer training there was a young man, partnered with me, shooting a 92. He was extremely accurate. When the instructor came to look at his target, he was stunned... He walked up to my partner and stated that a Beretta 92 does not shoot that well, then asked, "Who are you?" It turns out that he was shooting on the Army's gold medal team. The instructor then swapped my partner and had him join the instructors. It was a big relief for me as the man's shooting was intimidating me. I was then partnered with a cop that couldn't hit a barn, from the inside. I felt much better.....:)
 
i have had 2 92's....both were certainly accurate enough for my needs. i love the design of the 92, but the grips are a bit awkward for me, and i force myself to use the 92 cause i just really like it....this probably isn't great for accuracy.

my current inox 92 shoots like an absolute dream, but unfortunately....everyone that shoots it, shoots it better than i do. but dang....that thing is crazy smooth, accurate, and fun to shoot. everyone that shoots it trashes how crappy their current pistol is afterwards. the only exception being a friend who has a glock unicorn, which is the best shooting pistol i have ever personally shot (he had done a bit of work on it, and it paid off big time).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dallas53
So did Mel, assuming 15 +1 and a reload 31 rounds and It just kept going:D
To shoot down choppers, I will paraphrase a line from JAWS. "We're gonna need a bigger gun."
 
  • Like
Reactions: sambob and Dallas53
Took mine out a few days ago and I still don't shoot consistently...it is me, not the gun but I go from ringing my 45yd gong to missing my 10yd gong...maybe since they are bigger I should just stick to helicopters
 
I have a Kimber .45 and a Beretta 92FS. I have personally found both to be excellent weapons but I am consitently shooting tighter groups with my Kimber then I do with my Beretta. I have a theroy on this......

My Kimber is an early one and one of their claims to fame back then was that they had "match grade" quality parts. This would equate to very tight tolerances. As such, accuracy would be aided and groups would naturally be tighter.

My Beretta is a combat design and was anticipated to work in gritty, dirty environments where an overly tight tolerance could lead to a failure due to jamming. The open barrel design and loose tolerances inherent in a Beratta would be a major plus for reliability in this type of scenario yet sill allows for a predictable pattern in a military's accuracy requirements for a CQ firearm.

I never would hesitate to use either weapon in any scenario but I would know that my Kimber would need to be kept cleaner than my Beratta for ulitimate reliability, but my Kimber would hold an edge for bench shooting accuracy - but in a battle, that slight accuracy advantage would most likely not be essential so I would pick the 15 rds over the 7 rds and take my chances.... :)
 
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top