It seems reasonable to state that the M9 Berretta is a great gun. It has long served the United States Army and has a generally solid track history with just a few hiccups. The question is why the decision was made to change it now. The point is that age is the primary issue with weapons – many of them are simply too old, their tolerances have changed since they were first manufactured, and improper upkeep has not helped. Naturally, replacing one’s worn-out weapons is the wisest course of action. The Army reasoned that because the M9 is an outdated weapon, it is appropriate to undertake an update in this vein. The choice was made in favor of Sig M17(P320), given that it has a number of crucial advantages over M9. The below discussion will be dedicated to the exploration of these advantages.
The first point is that M9 was created as a self-defense weapon. However, given its significance in comparison with available alternatives of the 20th century, it met the requirements of the Army. Today, the related standards are way too high for M9, and it does not seem that it fits them. Particularly, the issue is that it may be considered heavy and bulky for soldiers in modern realities – especially in comparison with M17. The M9 weighs 33.3 oz (Pike, 2022), whereas the M17 is 29.6 oz in weight (Eastwood, 2021). Although three ounces may not seem like much, the phrase “oz equal pounds, pounds equal agony” holds true. On battlefields, the contemporary soldier lugs about a ton of equipment.
Moreover, it should be stressed that the Army has moved to quick-reaction weapons. In this regard, the fact that the M9 is a gun that has two separate trigger pushes is worth noticing. The succeeding shots are single-action, quick pulls, but the initial shot is a lengthy, powerful draw (Pike 2022). Any shooter will claim that training with a gun with two separate draws compared to one with a single steady pull is more difficult. This issue is not inherent to the M17, which is a notable advantage in the context given.
Then, in the case of the M9, the problem of age is the pressing one, which was stressed to be important for the US Army. The parts of the M9 are difficult to replace and, in many instances, require an entire weapon replacement. The M17 offers a special utility benefit within this scope. For example, the M17’s chassis contains the whole collection of the gun’s internal parts (Eastwood 2021). This makes it quite simple for one to switch grips. An M9’s frame fractures and the weapon is rendered useless. An M17’s chassis is removed from the frame and put in a new frame if the old one fractures. Additionally, the end-user has complete control over the grip’s color and thickness. Furthermore, it enables the use of the same chassis in many layouts.
To conclude, the above discussion compared the essentials of the M9 and the M17. The justification was provided on why the US Army decided to switch to the latter. The crucial points are that the M9 was made as a self-defense weapon initially, is too bulky for soldiers, the Army turned to quick-reaction guns, it is outdated, and its parts are wearing out considerably.
References
Eastwood, B. M. (2021). Sig Sauer M17: The gun the U.S. military fell in love with. 1945. Web.
Pike, T. (2022). Berretta M9 review: Old Italian warehouse. Gun University. Web.