I’ve NEVER liked the double-single design of a semi-auto. (I didn’t like the 3-shot burst design either … as there were/are subtle differences in the trigger on single shot mode.)
So, my question is, after reading this article – what do you think. BS? Poor training? Or a legit issue.
The Armed Forces have been using the double-single Beretta for years. What do you think?
Double-single doesn’t make a pistol easier to shoot and is probably a solution in search of a problem. Modern striker-fired pistols (Glock, S&W M&P, etc.) are probably the best compromise of shootability, mechanical safety, reliability, and price currently and commonly available.
Still, there isn’t anything wrong with DA semi-autos. Issues with the heavy first shot and transition from heavy-light exist but they’re grossly overstated. Certainly nothing proper training won’t fix. I have not yet met a genuinely good handgun shooter incapable of shooting double-single semi-autos well. They may not prefer it, might even shoot measurably better with something else, but a good marksman shoots them well. Shooters that can’t overcome this “problem” probably aren’t good handgun shooters to begin with.
I went from tuned 1911s in practical competition to rack grade M9s for military Service Conditions matches and now mix that with NRA Conventional don’t find the transition difficult. Every platform, even individual samples of the same design, exhibit unique idiosyncrasies that have to be trained/practiced around. Nothing a bit of dry practice won’t fix. Oh, I have plenty of issues in becoming a better marksman. So does nearly every human if they’re honest and knowledgeable. None of that is fixed by blaming the equipment.
I’ve shot the new M9A3 and was favorably impressed. To date, it is the most accurate factory service pistol I’ve ever shot, very ergonomic, and a great update. Given that Beretta is willing to offer these as an update on the existing contract and that they are parts compatible with no New Equipment Training needed, the DoD would be foolish to bother with anything else.
The only troops I’ve met complaining about the M9 were Americans. Every foreign military shooter we’ve had try the M9 liked it. Definitely a “grass is greener on the other side” bias.
Firearm User Network 
Ted A Sames II
Oct 01, 2016 @ 15:39:15
Are you talking in context of Police and Military Combat or Competition? I was an accomplished shooter before entering in the Army MP Corps. My 1911s’ Service Pistol could only group 3′ in diameter. All of our 1911s malfunctioned continually. We thought: “Well, it’s better than a revolver they had in 1899.” To me, 1911s …are awful pistols. I also owned Gold Cups which were accurate but they still jammed. (A combat H&K P9S totally dominated mine in precision fire.) I and another deputy took out a Browning-imported SIG P-226 and 1000 rounds of ammo for our personal tests back in 1982. All Gold Cups were sold within weeks and P-226s replaced them for competition and duty wear. RELIABILITY is #1. As a Training Specialist, Armorer and L/E FA Instructor and tactical instructor (retired), The P-226s that I used/owned/trained on probably have had 10 malfunctions and one Extractor broken in 10 YEARS…and that’s from very nasty ammo quality. Do you know how many extractors broke in my 1911s? Plus, most police agencies have outlawed S/A auto pistols because of safety concerns. Our agency took them off the list when a well trained SWAT member shot his partner in the thigh. As for accuracy, my range P-226 will still out-shoot most Kimber 1911s when it uses 147 gr bullets. When a SIG P-226 malfunctions, all the Instructors and RSOs talk about it. Since retirement, I have switched to Glocks mosting because of size and weight. Both my Glock 33 and 43 are exceptionally accurate pistols. There are serious reasons why few countries and agencies still have 1911s–there are much better choices. The new H&K is considered the most reliable in the world. The Germans put their pistols through terrible tests…our’s has to pass political tests.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Oct 02, 2016 @ 14:07:26
Your comments have nothing to do with what was written in the post above, but I’ll reply anyway…
>> Are you talking in context of Police and Military Combat or Competition?
Yes.
The question was about what advantage a DA design like the M9/92FS was supposed to provide as the questioner didn’t see any benefit. Despite commentary to the contrary, skill and ability to hit targets quickly remains the same regards of context.
>> My 1911s’ Service Pistol could only group 3′ in diameter. All of our 1911s malfunctioned continually. We thought: “Well, it’s better than a revolver they had in 1899.” To me, 1911s …are awful pistols. I also owned Gold Cups which were accurate but they still jammed.
Then fix your equipment, stop with the operator-induced malfunctions, or get something else. Regardless, the question was about what advantage a DA design like the M9/92FS was supposed to provide as the questioner didn’t see any benefit. Not about the 1911 or other firearm reliability.
LikeLike
Anonymous
Oct 03, 2016 @ 00:49:18
Loves me my 1911’s, never had any issues with them I could blame on the gun over decades and tens of thousands of rounds. Hate the plastic pistols and crunchy triggers. Spoiled I guess. My hands/fingers are too small/short to really reach well enough on a 226 trigger, or really any of the double-stack double-actions with the far-forward trigger position.
The only 9 I ever liked was the old Browning Hi-Power P-35. Fits my hand and shoots like a .22. Someday I’ll get one just for grins.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Oct 04, 2016 @ 14:10:04
Fair enough. The post wasn’t about what was preferred, rather, what (if any) advantage or disadvantage does a DA design like the M9 provide.
A good shooter will shoot anything well because good fundamentals transfer regardless of equipment or context, even if said good shooter doesn’t prefer it.
LikeLike