Talk:M9

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to M9. This is also a forum for spreading libelous rumors about the article's subject. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

Research

Wow. You must have really spent tons of time doing research on this. Have you ever fired one before?-- Sir Unknown User ^{(Talk : Cont : VFH : PEE : CUN)} 03:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article is a complete and total idiot, that know NOTHING about firearms! If you believe this in any way...seek help because you're a bigger idiot then this guy!!! – Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.180.236 (talk • contribs)

Not quite. It's true that 9mm rounds are weaker than .45ACP. The problem is that the author is biased against them. The reason the M9 was chosen to replace the Colt 1911 was indeed to standardize the round used for NATO forces. But we could have made them join us and use a .45. What irritates the author (and me) is that we sacrified stopping power for ammo capacity. That is almost always a bad trade. To the Unknown User, I have fired both. Neither one sucks. The M9 is good for drawn out fights from cover. The capacity will allow you to force your opponent into taking cover. The 1911 is better for a straight shoot-out on open ground. You are more likely to put your target down in a single shot and the noise is a powerful psychological weapon. M9=good, but not great. Also, I think Mr. Flamer above me is sad for not signing his post. HeroReborn 65.90.138.150 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)