The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Cabela's is advertising the Beretta M9 as the "closest replica to the military M9 a civilian may legally own."

For real, is there any legal restriction on ownership of "military" pistols? Or is this just marketing BS?

What difference, if any, is there between there between the military and civvy M9s?

Oh, and I heard Obama's gonna ban them.

Im not a big m9 fan, but id take one for free

I wonder if it's a CZ 75 vs CZ 85 type of thing.

My guess is that it's more like weapons owned by the military after a certain date can't be sold to the civilian population in the US. Thus the "can legally own" part. Even though technically, their ours from the outset.

My wife has the Inox version. No difference but the color and place of manufacture. In fact, the Italian Inox is WAY better looking IMO.

Never really liked the M9/92FS or whatever you want to call it.

I never new there was a difference. I carried one and my brother owns one they are the same.

There's zero difference between the two mechanically, it's a publicity stunt. I hope there's some acquisitions turd getting kicked in the dick repeatedly for not sticking with the 1911 or at least going with the glock, sig, or HK .45s.

rglad wrote:My wife has the Inox version. No difference but the color and place of manufacture. In fact, the Italian Inox is WAY better looking IMO.

That is one pretty firearm. I have the Storm in 45. Now I want a 92FS and a 9000S and a I mean 10 or 75 more others. Yeah more!

What I understand is the Civilian M9's insides are a little different than the military M9A1 which also has a rail.
Both are made in the US.
The 92FS is made in Italy and does not have a rail and is slanted differently whereas the M9's are straight. I like the 92FS out of all of them that are similar because of the shape. I also would probably never end up adding a light or laser anyway.

ABNinfantryman wrote:There's zero difference between the two mechanically, it's a publicity stunt. I hope there's some acquisitions turd getting kicked in the dick repeatedly for not sticking with the 1911 or at least going with the glock, sig, or HK .45s.

Those didn't exist and the cz preformed second best at the time. I can't recall all the other makes but they wanted a standard NATO round.

I really like the Beretta M92/M9 but i think i like my Witness better. Probably only because it cost $400 less.

Paladin wrote:Those didn't exist and the cz preformed second best at the time. I can't recall all the other makes but they wanted a standard NATO round.

I looked this up and found the GAO report from an investigation into the selection process for bias for Beretta. Interestingly, the report concluded that S&W was unfairly treated despite being superior in many ways and was eliminated due to the Army's selective enforcement of standards. The Sig226 (being submitted by SACO since Sig at the time didn't have an importer) lost solely based on price point and there were allegations that someone leaked the cost of the Sig to Beretta which the GAO concluded there was no evidence for.

http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf

I wonder what will come out of the new trials to replace the M9. Scroll down the page for the story.
https://peosoldier.army.mil/newpeo/Equipment/FI10.asp

Sounds like the SigP250 right off the bat.

MtnMan wrote:What difference, if any, is there between there between the military and civvy M9s?

Serial numbers. Marketing.