Or infamous, depending on who you ask!

I served as an MP in the Corps and carried an M9 (the U.S. made mil-spec version of the Beretta 92F) daily, only because I had to, and always wished I didn't. I know that the M9 is NOT necessarily indicative of the Italian made versions that are sold in all civilian markets, but I always thought of the M9 as a pistol made to AK-47 tolerances...you might not hit what you're aiming at, but it's always go bang. The machining was mediocre, parts fit ranged from decent to looser than a $2 whore, double-action trigger sucked bad, the single-action wasn't much better, and the accuracy was literally hit-and-miss. They also weighed a ton, especially with a 15 round mag. I remember going home with a sore hip every day because 12 hours with an M9 in a strong side holster felt like carrying around a brick. And this was wearing it on police black gear with a nice wide thick belt. The M9 definately left a bad taste in my mouth for Beretta's in general. Every time I look at one I remember my sore hip.

I think that the problem behind the M9 was that the government contracted a foreign company to make our service pistol. Beretta probably based their bid on the cost of producing the weapons in Italy with Italian labor and an existing factory. But the DoD insisted that the guns be made in the U.S. by expensive U.S. workers, and also meant that Beretta had to incur a truckload of additional fixed costs to build a plant they didn't really need. This forced Beretta, to make the guns at the original bid price, to, well, cut a few corners in the quality control department.

So while the civilian Beretta's are probably great pistols, I wouldn't buy one. And as far as I'm concerned the M9 is a underpowered hunk of junk that barely classifies in my book as somewhere between "boat anchor" and "slightly better than an E-tool."

I'll stick with my Glock anyday.

Mike