Are the Army’s old Beretta M9 and new SIG M17 pistols as similar as people think?

In 2017, the United States Army announced that the SIG P320 had won the Army’s Modular Handgun Contest. The SIG P320 would go on to serve as the official sidearm of the U.S. Army and would eventually also be adopted by the Marines, Navy, and Air Force. The gun would replace the Beretta M9 and become the M17 (full-size model) and M18 (compact design) series. 

Yet, the M17 (and M18) doesn’t seem to be all that different to the M9. Both weapons are 9mm handguns with double-stack magazines. The M9 has a 4.9-inch barrel, the M17 has a 4.7-inch barrel and the M18 has a 3.9-inch barrel. Both the M9 and the M17/M18 have double-stack magazines. The Beretta famously held 15 rounds, and the M17 and M18 use 17- to 21-round magazines. Not much of a difference. 

This has led some people to ask why there was a change needed. After all, if the M18 is a slightly smaller M17, wouldn’t it have been easier to instead adopt the Beretta 92 compact and keep the M9? What’s the big difference between the guns that justifies a swap in design, especially if you’re keeping the same caliber?

However, as we’ll show, these two 9mm double stack handguns are very different pistols.

The differences between the M9 and M17/M18

One of the biggest differences between these two guns comes down to the fire-control design. The Beretta M9 uses a DA/SA or double-action single-action design. This means the first trigger pull is heavy and long, but after that, the gun becomes a single-action design with a much lighter and shorter pull. The gun is also hammer-fired. 

On the other hand, the SIG M17/M18 series uses a striker-fired design that doesn’t have a hammer but a firing pin restrained by a spring. When the trigger is pressed, the firing pin releases and fires the gun. This provides one trigger pull that is short and relatively light. 

The striker-fired design is the duty design chosen by most modern police forces. Having one trigger pull simplifies training and provides what’s overall considered as a better trigger. The striker cannot be decocked, although the M17/M18 series does feature a manual frame safety. 

Material design 

Another big difference is the materials used in these firearms: The Beretta has an all-metal design, which was typical of firearms from the 1980s; the SIG M17 series uses a polymer frame, which is the current standard. Both designs have pros and cons. 

The M17 is a lighter weapon overall. It allows for flex, which can help reduce recoil without increasing weight. Modern polymers were initially thought to be too weak for serious use, but the polymer pistol has now proven to be durable enough for the worst environments. 

Related: The Flux Raider – From pistol to Personal Defense Weapon

Modularity 

The M17/M18 series of pistols has inherently a modular design, as a result of the Army’s requirements. This modularity includes the presence of a rail for a light or laser-aiming device. (Admittedly, small numbers of the Beretta M9A1 were adopted that also offered this feature.)

The M17/M18 series is also optics-ready. Big Army has adopted a handgun red dot, but SIG has an M17 red dot with an NSN number. Special operation forces in the U.S. and around the world are using red dots on pistols. Having the option on a stock firearm is a nice touch and helps prepare the military for a future where handgun red dots might be ubiquitous. 

Besides external, the weapon also offers internal modularity. The M17 series uses a removable fire-control unit that allows the user to remove almost all of the firearm’s internals and swap the slide and frame. This enables the full-sized M17 to be converted to the shorter M18 with a slide swap. Theoretically, it could be paired with something like the Flux Defense Raider and turned into a personal defense weapon. 

The Beretta did not have this capability. 

A new world 

It’s worth noting that the SIG M17 and M18 series are likely cheaper to purchase than Berettas. The use of polymer frames reduces production cost, and the series’ striker-fired system is simpler than a DA/SA hammer-fired design.

The Beretta M9 had been serving since 1985 and was beginning to age out. It was likely cost-effective to replace it with the M17; further, the latter’s cheaper construction and improved modularity and capability made it easy to swap from one 9mm handgun to another.

The SIG M17 and M18 have a bright future ahead of them, and it’s easy to see the gun lasting until we discover some new type of projectile or weapon technology as a whole. 

Feature Image: Soldiers across Taskforce Nightmare qualify on the M17 in Bulgaria, April 2024. (Photo by Sgt. Valesia Gaines/U.S. Army)

Read more from Sandboxx News

• Game-changing military aircraft that were canceled before they could change the game
• Anduril’s Roadrunner is a unique reusable missile interceptor
• The slick custom shotgun carried by a Navy SEAL point man in Vietnam
• A Delta man’s failure to follow instructions was more than it seemed
• Soldiers in Alaska landed their Black Hawk on a train in a special ops exercise