The video opens by framing a direct comparison between the Beretta M9, represented on screen by a 92FS, and the newer SIG M17 and M18 pistols adopted by the U.S. military. It is explained that the 92FS is dimensionally and functionally equivalent to the M9 for this discussion, making it a valid stand-in. The Beretta is described as an all-metal, hammer-fired pistol with traditional double-action/single-action operation and an ambidextrous slide-mounted safety/decocker. The hosts clarify that decocker-only variants and upgraded models like the M9A4 are not standard issue. In contrast, the M17 and Marine Corps M18 are introduced as striker-fired pistols built on the modular SIG P320 platform, offering a consistent trigger pull, ambidextrous manual safety, and the ability to swap slides and grip modules. The segment emphasizes modern features such as polymer construction, improved ergonomics, accessory rail, and easier red dot mounting as key reasons the U.S. military moved from the M9 to the M17/M18 family.
Attention shifts to how the older M9 design compares to modern pistols when actually fired. The hosts highlight that contemporary platforms typically offer better ergonomics, higher capacity, integrated Picatinny rails for lights and lasers, and optics-ready slides, all areas where the original M9 lags. A live-fire demonstration of the M9’s double-action/single-action system shows the long, heavy initial double-action trigger pull, followed by decocking and returning to single-action. A second shooter remarks on how lengthy and demanding that first pull feels. The video then transitions to the M17 on the firing line, explaining its striker-fired mechanism and consistent trigger pull from the first to the last shot, while also engaging and disengaging the manual safety during shooting. After firing both pistols at roughly 20 yards, the hosts compare the basic three-white-dot sights of the 92FS/M9 to the tritium night sights on the M17/M18. They discuss how the heavy first DA pull can aid decision-making on the initial shot but warn that the much lighter SA follow-up can lead to unintended second shots under stress.
The discussion deepens around trigger characteristics and handling. The M9’s long, heavy double-action first shot is contrasted with its short, light single-action follow-ups, and the hosts note that this transition can surprise shooters and cause unintentional second shots, especially in high-stress situations. By comparison, the SIG P320/M17 platform delivers the same striker-fired trigger pull for every round, which they argue simplifies training and performance under pressure. Recoil between the guns is described as very similar, with the heavier, all-metal M9 feeling slightly softer but the SIG pistols winning on ergonomics and overall shootability. The metal Beretta is perceived as more durable in hand, yet the polymer SIGs are preferred for comfort and control. The hosts criticize manual safeties in general but acknowledge that the Beretta’s slide-mounted safety/decocker is actually better integrated than the add-on manual safety on the P320, which was included at the Department of Defense’s request and can be accidentally engaged. To fairly compare generations, they introduce the Beretta M9A4 as a modernized evolution of the classic 1970s/1980s M9/92 design.
The M9A4 is presented as Beretta’s answer to modern handgun expectations while retaining the familiar 92-series lineage. Upgrades over the original M9/92FS include significantly improved sights, a threaded barrel for suppressors or muzzle devices, and an integral Picatinny rail for mounting lights and lasers. The pistol gains an improved trigger, a revised grip angle for more natural pointing, and increased magazine capacity from 15 to 18 rounds, while also trimming some weight. Crucially, the M9A4 is optics-ready via an optics plate system, addressing one of the biggest shortcomings of the legacy M9. During live fire, the hosts run the M9A4 in double-action/single-action and note a smoother, more refined pull compared to the older model. They comment on the more intuitive sight picture and better ergonomics, referencing similar experiences with the closely related M9A3. This segment positions the M9A4 as a highly capable, updated Beretta that narrows the gap with modern striker-fired designs, even if it does not fully match their modularity.
Focus shifts to the M18, the Marine Corps’ more compact counterpart to the M17. The M18 is described as using the same modular P320 fire control unit and frame but with a shorter slide and barrel, making it easier to carry while retaining full-size grip capacity. The hosts compare its handling and recoil to the M17, noting that both shoot similarly, but the M17’s longer slide provides a more forgiving sight radius. They criticize the M17’s relatively thick front sight, which can obscure finer aiming, yet still appreciate the overall sighting system. In discussing roles, one host prefers the M17 as a combat handgun, citing the desire for “more gun” and the advantages of a longer sight radius in duty use. Both agree that the M18 is better suited as a carry pistol due to its more compact top end, while the M17 excels when maximum performance and shootability are prioritized in a battlefield or duty context.
The conversation turns to platform philosophy, contrasting the SIG M17/M18’s modularity with the more traditional, fixed configuration of the Beretta M9 family. The hosts emphasize that the Department of Defense specifically sought a modular handgun system, which the P320-based design delivers through easily swappable slides, barrels, and grip modules. This allows the same serialized fire control unit to be configured as a full-size M17, a compact M18, or other variants, tailoring the pistol to mission or user needs. In comparison, the Beretta M9, M9A3, and M9A4, while excellent pistols, lack this level of adaptability. One host mentions particular appreciation for the M9A3, praising its improvements and character even though it cannot match the SIG’s modular architecture. The segment underscores that modularity, optics readiness, and accessory compatibility were decisive factors in the military’s move away from the long-serving M9 platform toward the M17/M18 series.
In closing, the hosts share personal preferences and broader conclusions about the U.S. military’s pistol choice. They reiterate that the M17 is favored as a combat handgun, while the M18 is preferred as a carry gun due to its more compact slide and barrel. Despite strong respect for the Beretta M9, M9A3, and M9A4, they stress that these pistols simply do not offer the modularity that the Department of Defense prioritized. One host notes owning and loving an M9A3, describing it as a pistol that consistently reminds him why it remains in his collection, even if it risks becoming a safe queen. Ultimately, both agree that the U.S. government made the right decision in selecting the SIG P320-based M17/M18 platform. One carries a P320 XCarry Marine Raider model as a personal sidearm, illustrating confidence in the system, while remaining open to future innovations from Beretta and other manufacturers.
Loading...