To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
I like an all steel gun. I like a hammer fired gun. I like a Beretta. I like the 9mm.
But I don’t like the m9. It’s too much gun for a 9mm.
I’m not a fan of the .40 S&W. But the m9 is a gun that was meant for it.
“Too much gun for 9mm” Not starting a fight just curious. What do you mean by too much gun? I have a similar CZ-75B and it’s a dream to shoot with the extra mass.
I really like the CZ. Both guns are massively overbuilt for the 9mm round. They are full sized duty guns meant to be open carried in full sized duty rigs.
There’s nothing wrong with either gun or the Ruger p89 that I had. But there’s enough metal there to carry a heavier round.
For civilian ccw use I would pick a lighter, slimmer gun.
Beretta M9 is not an all-steel gun. The frame is aluminum.
Same with its predecessors the 92S, 92SB, and 92SB-F/92F .
I don’t think there is any gun meant for .40. Has anyone ever designed a gun for .40 and not converted it from something else?
Well, that was one of the big selling points of the original cartridge; .40 “stopping power” in a 9mm-sized package. It’s just that some 9mm packages weren’t up to having a larger cartridge stuffed into that design without needing major changes and/or significant weight increases. A few I remember that didn’t turn out so well were the .40 Hi-Power, and the HK P7M10 (HK was 42+ ounces!).
I suppose you could say that any pistol initially designed and built after the .40 was introduced (and chambered in .40) would qualify. Other folks might say any pistol REdesigned after an earlier 9mm-converted-to-.40 was found to be wanting in one or more areas (the Gen4 Glock, for instance).
Fine choice of gun and not too difficult to conceal if you ever look at some government professionals. Surprised there are not more people with concealed Berettas
Beretta and Moleskine. I like this young man’s sense of taste.
I personally wasn’t a fan of the M9, it just didn’t balance as well in my hand. I grew up shooting rifles shotguns and revolvers, and when I enlisted at 18 and got issued one as a 240 gunner the M9 was the first semi automatic pistol I cut my teeth on. So it does have a place in my heart, but I just don’t like shooting as much as other guns.
I’ve never liked the M9 (Beretta 92) and couldn’t be happier the Army is again going with Sig but all the way this time.