McFreedom

InstaPundit and Donald Sensing are speaking today about the poor quality and effectiveness of the US M9 sidearm. For personal and home defense, I rely on a number of Sig Sauer 9MM pistols. Unlike the US Military, I am not hampered by the Geneva Convention and can use "exotic" rounds which allow the 9MM to pack something of a whallop. I own an M1911 (not A1), and I really admire its ahead-of-its-time design (this design is 93 years old, and doesn't look antiquated in the least). I think the .45 round makes a ton of sense in a military situation where you are limited to ball ammunition. As a civilian, though, I like the lighter weight, higher capacity and greater control afforded by 9MM. An additional consideration for me (and the US military) is that 9MM is the most popular pistol caliber in the world, and there's never going to be trouble finding it. I can certainly say, though, were I limited to ball ammunition, I'd be a .45 caliber man.

I find it especially interesting that Glenn Reynolds says that the Beretta M9 he fired "felt cheap...[o]f course, everything feels cheap by comparision [to Sig Sauers]." That is, of course, precisely why the US Military went with the Beretta 92F (now M9) over the Sig Sauer P226. The Beretta design and the P226 were the only two designs which passed all of the military's tests when they were searching for a new sidearm. The military went with the Beretta because they had the low bid. You, of course, get what you pay for.