Beretta 92 (and 96) size


PDA






natedog
January 2, 2004, 02:28 AM
I'veread recent complaints hare that thte Beretta 92 series handguns are too large and heavy and bulky. It seems a little odd that these pistols are larger than Glocks, yet the 9mm version only holds 15 rounds and the .40 version holds only 11.

If you enjoyed reading about "Beretta 92 (and 96) size" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blueduck
January 2, 2004, 02:34 AM
They do (or did) make aftermaket magazines that brought the 92's up to Glocks full size 17 round capacity. Companies used different followers to accomplish this. I've seen the same sort of thing for Ruger autos magazines.

Seems Glock just has a better design follower wise which means they do tend to hold a couple of rounds more than the average bear.

FWIW 3 of my 5 millitary surplus 92FS (M-9) mags have worn in to the point they will hold 16 rounds, don't keep them loaded like that, just would make me nervous. Never had a range problem shooting them loaded to 16 though.

denfoote
January 2, 2004, 02:39 AM
It's just something you have to experience for yourself!!

WonderNine
January 2, 2004, 02:39 AM
The Glock follower is designed like the 17 round Beretta mags, that's how it gets the capacity.

I kind of find it silly that 92's are "too big" though as I've CCW'd them before and never had a problem with the size of the grip and I only have medium sized hands.

dsk
January 2, 2004, 02:44 AM
The reason why Glocks hold so many rounds is because they have plenty of room to work with. There are no grip panels to fatten the grip, so the frame could be made to maximum possible dimensions to accomodate a wide double-stack magazine. With the Beretta you also have a long, narrow taper at the top of the mag which wastes room for more ammo.

Generally, between the inefficient utilization of magazine capacity, the fat grip, the long trigger, the dumb location of the safety and the super-wide slide dimensions, the Beretta is by no means the most state-of-the-art handgun design out there. Its saving grace is the design's incredible functional reliability, although the QC lapses in some of Beretta's recent production runs may have compromised that as well. Basically, as long as you get a good one the 92fs is a great gun to keep for home or shop defense, where reliability and safety features are much more important than size or efficiency.

Blueduck
January 2, 2004, 02:50 AM
I don't know DSK, If it's the frame, mag width, and taper then how does that explain a follower switch allowing the exact same capacity:confused: Glocks mags are wider, but gotta take into account the polymer construction (with metal re-enforcments) that is much thicker than an all metal mag.

Big difference to me right now is that pre-ban Beretta mags are way cheaper than Glocks. May this time soon pass :)

dsk
January 2, 2004, 02:56 AM
Blueduck, the 17-round magazines you refered to used a special flat spring that sat behind the follower and unrolled as rounds were loaded. The mags held more rounds because the spring didn't take up extra room like the standard coil spring does, which sits under a standard follower and has to be compressed underneath as rounds are loaded. I remember Ram-Line, Eagle, and (I think) USA used this system. I remember having a clear plastic Ram-Line Ruger .22 mag that held 14 rounds this way. It worked really well too.

WonderNine
January 2, 2004, 02:58 AM
Sorry dsk, the 17 rounders use the exact same spring, it's just the hollow follower.

Same thing with the Browing Hi-Power 15 rounders vs. the 13 rounders.

I've seen many in my time, believe me.

Blueduck
January 2, 2004, 02:59 AM
DSK, Ahh I stand corrected, but am smarter for it ;)

Edit after WN9's reply-Now I'm not sure if I'm smarter or not:confused:

dsk
January 2, 2004, 03:01 AM
The HP 15-rounders that I've seen are longer. Can you tell me which brands of Beretta mags were 17-round yet used the standard coil spring?

Having a shorter (read: tipsy) follower is what gives many 1911 mags an 8-round capacity. Their tendency to tip down is also why many of them don't work worth a damn. Wilson came up with a hollow follower design and ever-so-slightly longer tube for their 8-rounders, which in my experience at least seems to work.

WonderNine
January 2, 2004, 03:02 AM
Perhaps you're referring to the KRD 15 round mags? I don't know about those, but I did used to have some 17 rounders.

I was referring to the Mec-Gars for the 92 and BHP.

I heard somewhere that the Ram-Line 18 rounders for the 92 used a coil spring like you speak of, but I don't know for sure.

Skunkabilly
January 2, 2004, 03:03 AM
They are indeed large and heavy.

I think you need a college degree to figure to understand the spacial relations of magazines.... XD mags are the same dimensions as Beretta mags pretty much, but the 40 mags function with 15 9mms--Beretta 40 mags fit 13.75 9mms. Go figure :)

Mine only hold 10 :banghead: :barf:

WonderNine
January 2, 2004, 03:05 AM
Interesting as the Beretta Mec-Gar .40 mags only hold 12 rounds with the hollow follower....

I think you're right about needing a deegee to figure this stuff out Skunk... LoL.

dsk
January 2, 2004, 03:12 AM
Whatever the science is behind mag capacity, in my opinion it ain't worth using extra-capacity mags in any firearm. I haven't found too many that equaled the originals in feed reliability. Anybody remember the all-steel USA Glock mags that held a couple extra rounds? Anybody actually still use them? :scrutiny:

WonderNine
January 2, 2004, 03:14 AM
All I remember is the poorly constructed +2 extensions for Glock mags that had the reputation of breaking and dumping your rounds all over the ground.

I'm more interested in "original spec" magazines nowadays, although honestly I've never had a problem with true Hi-Caps.

cratz2
January 2, 2004, 11:46 AM
I can't see many situations where a well trained person would have a serious and pressing need for two extra rounds without just poping in a new magazines.

I mean, I guess it's always best to plan for a worst case scenario but countless feedback tells us that we are EXTREMELY unlikely to need more than three or four shots for 99+ percent of situations.

Honestly, if I had to CCW either a Beretta or Glock, it would be a G26, 27 or 36. If I had to open carry all day, I would either want the 19 or 23 but I would strongly consider the Beretta over the 17 or 22.

10-Ring
January 2, 2004, 11:55 AM
Sure, the Glock mags originally carried more rounds than Beretta mags :rolleyes: But now the legal capacities are 10 :banghead: At that point, I prefer the ergos of the 92fs over the G17.

WonderNine
January 3, 2004, 12:07 AM
The Glock factory mags carried more than the Beretta 92 factory mags. But what we're saying is that the Beretta mags that are constructed like the Glock mags carry the same payload. (17rds)

Mastrogiacomo
January 3, 2004, 01:51 PM
Most men have tried to guide a little lady like me to the Lady Smith version autos -- I have the compact M, 92FS with a wrap grip, and the Brig also with a wrap grip -- I love every one of them and handle them just as well as the guys....just goes to show you can't believe the hype. Don't knock what you haven't tried. ;)

George Hill
January 3, 2004, 02:10 PM
I have a few Beretta mags that are 18 rounders... They are flush fitting made by Ram Line. Stainless body, and plastic followers and bases. They work great.

If you enjoyed reading about "Beretta 92 (and 96) size" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!