My real life experience with the M9 for both service use, extensive marksmanship competitions, and my personal 92FS.
Far too big for the cartridge particularly 9mm ball, bulky grip which females and dudes with smaller hands found challenging, and some magazines from one manufacturer that were garbage (but of course the pistol took the blame). Also, no possibility of changing sights or mounting lights/lasers until the M9A3.
The other side of the coin: I won 3 matches with mine so they are accurate (just like the 1911 when they aren't slap arsed worn out), utterly reliable (see the magazine comment), and a real beast when loaded with modern HP's for home defense.
To say the Sig wasn't tested is a fallacy. The real draw of the P320 design for we in the military was the grip modules which could be tailored to large or small hands. The same weapon was easily converted for OSI or other troops that need a small, concealable pistol. Plus it reduces inventory as the undercover weapon was the Sig M11 (P228 and P229 in 9MM). Also, better sights and a pic rail for accessories.
My experience shows that both weapons have plusses and minuses, but both have their place. My experience tends to favor the Sig.
Stowing my soapbox.
Pershing 1A. No city too big, no populated area too small. We even get the roaches.
Wonder how many conversations sounded just like this when the M9 replaced the 1911.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same... President Ronald Reagan
He says the Beretta was better, and that they never did the testing on the Sig before adoption.
I think that guy takes the opposite view of the popular opinion, no matter what.
Watched a few of his videos, but stopped when he spent an entire video trashing the M-14 as a worthless failure.
It seems he makes a point to trash whatever military arms replaced the previous ones... Granted, some military rifles could have been better, but many were cornerstones of today's modern arms.
He says the Beretta was better, and that they never did the testing on the Sig before adoption.
I think that guy takes the opposite view of the popular opinion, no matter what.
Watched a few of his videos, but stopped when he spent an entire video trashing the M-14 as a worthless failure.
It seems he makes a point to trash whatever military arms replaced the previous ones... Granted, some military rifles could have been better, but many were cornerstones of today's modern arms.
My cousin was a sniper in the Canadian Armed Forces and served in Afghanistan. For sidearms, the CAF have traditionally used the Browning Hi-Power. I am surprised to see that they are transitioning to the SIG P320. I had not heard that, but I guess that at some time you have to retire the Hi-Power which was adopted in 1944.
Since retiring from the CAF, my cousin has been involved in several ventures, including training civilian shooters in long range shooting and training Iraqi Armed forces as a contractor. As a contractor, he could carry anything he wanted. His choices are a Glock 17 and an AK47.
So a former CAF sniper chose a Glock 17 as his sidearm while working in Iraq. However, I don't know if he ever tried the P320.
It is a pavement pistol, fine for law enforcement.
Sucks as a service pistol.
GR
Reliability was only an issue with Checkmate made magazines, because they were parkerized, so retained sand. Beretta mags were polished, blued steel, so the follower just slipped past any sand grit in the mag.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/tTpFhhcj/20231110-125845.jpg)
