Would a Beretta M9 be a good first hand gun?

For open carry, range fun, or in your bedside table, sure, buy now. While the base M9 is still in the market, there's a fuckton of 92-series variants out there to check out as well (with all kinds of different SA/DA configurations). Is it just the appeal of the "M9" name? The newest version is the M9A4, coming in with features like optic combability, an accessory rail for lights, a threaded barrel, bevelled magazine well, the iron sights that are easier to replace, an easier magazine release to operate, and a slimmer grip. These are all features considered modern/contemporary incorporated into a tried and true all-metal hammer-fired handgun in a market saturated with polymer strikers. Are these necessary, you be the judge. If you plan to conceal, the size and even heft can work against the criteria better suited. That's before we even get to the nitty gritty details like something with a hammer in concealment. But, the M9's decocker is a great feature. They have shorter barreled 92 variants, like the 92X RDO Compact, that I would recommend. > Decent power, It's a 9x19mm, being fired out of a 4.9" barrel. Power is a broad term. Yeah, its getting extra velocity compared to the publish numbers on the ammo box (if present, are referring to performance out of a 4" barrel as per SAAMI spec). So something like Federal HST 124gr @ 4" doing 310lb/ft, vs the M9 doing approx. 340lb/ft, a +9% energy advantage... except with modern ammunition, as in hollowpoints, its really a matter of the bullet striking the target at designed expansion velocity threshold (a number I don't see manufacturers divulging) that decides how effective the bullet is. If I'm engaged in firefights out to 50yds, would the extra 110 fps at the muzzle be the difference for a better chance at expansion (bullets shed speed downrange, and most handgun bullets have comparatively terrible ballistic coefficiency because they are operating out of their element), dunno; I'd probably carry a smaller version anyways because I'm carrying it the rest of the time, and its not just mass, but volume (as in snagging on shit, going in and out of vehicles) that's a key consideration. Between the M9 and the shorter 92X Compact (4.25" barrel), the only difference you'll notice without breaking out a chronograph would be the increased recoil impulse on the 92X (.75" shorter OAL, less mass). Best wishes in finding the specific M9/92 that will fit you and your needs best.