Taurus PT 92 vs Glock type pistol designs reliability w/ overgrease & reloads

[TheGuyOfSouthamerica]

Hi,

Today I again run the reloads through the chronograph with the new Taurus PT 92 and could draw some conclusions.
a) Beretta 92 style pistols are more sensitive to overlubrication/overgrease that for example the SD9VE Glock style pistol.

I followed the Suggestion of one poster here on THR and whiped off all the grease. Soon the pistol started to work more reliable. But not yet completely reliable with the reloads.

b) I assume my reloads have a bit to less powder but These loads easily would have functioned reliably with the SD9VE. So the Beretta 92 type pistols are more sensitive to the correct ammo than an Glock type pistol.
I loaded about 3.7 to 3.9 grain of VV N330 type powder into the 9mm Luger seated to an OAL of 1.050". This more or less is a reliable load in this Taurus PT 92.
The SD9VE functioned reliably with 3.3 grain VV N330 loaded to 1.040" OAL (or even less).

The load gave me an velocity of 923 fps which translates to 235 ft-lbs for an 124 grain lead bullet. The primers have a tendency to flatten. But when loaded to 1.057" OAL I get an velocity of about 840 fps and no flattened primers but the gun does not eject nor load another cartridge.

I already figured I will put a bit more powder into the case in order to assure reliability. This load is about the power of an 38 spl and does not even reach the power Level of an 9mm Glisenti.

c) grease is not an Option in this gun. But I had no Problem whatsoever using heavy grease in the SD9VE. That maybe due to the more contact Points this Taurus PT 92 has. This gun is indeed an tight fitting gun (no rattle whatsoever).

Overall I find the Taurus PT 92 is not racking the slide as Slick as it did when I tried it at the LGS. I wonder why since it is oiled properly. Back then it was not oiled at all.
The rubber O-Ring I put in as an Shok Buff (to recreate the effect of the Wilson Combat shok buff) at first I took out but then realised it was the grease what

Has anyone observed similar issues and getting the slide less Slick in the Taurus PT 92 AFS pistols? I assume there is no break in period needed.
Any suggestions and first hand observations/experiences are welcome.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

I saw the other thread but never read through it so forgive me if this was covered.

But why? Why would you want to heavily grease a modern firearm when you want to shoot it. I always ONLY used grease for storage. Regular gun oil is fine for everything else. I don't see what grease brings to the table that even basic Rem Oil does not. Heck, even old motor oil will do. IF you really wanted to use a slick grease, I would just dab it on my finger and run it along the contact surfaces... far from "over greasing".

However, when it comes to reliability, I always found that all metal guns are more forgiving if run "wet". Even my Stoeger/Beretta Cougar runs better with more oil. I find that my poly guns just run smoother with little oil... which I assume is how they are designed. But I also think tolerances will play a factor more than whether it is a poly vs. metal or hammer vs. striker gun. Tighter guns will not like more grease.

As far as ammo, I think that the slide weight, spring weight, and overall slide velocity and resistance will have more of an effect, making it a gun to gun issue... not a gun design issue. If you had a Beretta with weak springs, it would be more reliable with weak ammo as opposed to a strong sprung Glock.

 

[Luger_carbine]

Blazzer Brass, which is some of the softest shooting commercial ammo available moves a 124gr bullet at 1090 ft/sec for 327 ft-lbs

 

[bsms]

No problems racking or shooting my 92. But then, I do what I was taught in the military: keep it clean, a little oil, use standard ammo. IIRC, Beretta's manual says to LIGHTLY OIL the slide and rail. Not grease, vasoline, the wife's hair gel, etc.

I use wimpy ammo in my S&W Model 29. J-frames get full power 357 & 38+P. The Beretta gets off-the-shelf name brand ammo. If you want a 380 instead, I suggest buying a 380 gun instead of loading 9mm down to that level.

 

[C0untZer0]

But why?

I read through the other threads and this is really the question.

Q: I reload bunny fart 9mm cartridges, add an O-ring to my Taurus, grease the hell out it, and it doesn't work, any suggestions and first hand observations/experiences are welcome.

No one can answer that question specifically without going down the rabbit hole, so you get standard answers that make sense like "Oil lightly and use standard ammo"

 

[JTQ]

Overall I find the Taurus PT 92 is not racking the slide as Slick as it did when I tried it at the LGS. I wonder why since it is oiled properly. Back then it was not oiled at all.

The rubber O-Ring I put in as an Shok Buff (to recreate the effect of the Wilson Combat shok buff) at first I took out but then realised it was the grease what

Take the O-Ring out. It doesn't belong there.

 

[Luger_carbine]

Your generalized conclusions from this experiment are incorrect and misstated

That "Beretta 92 style pistols are more sensitive to overlubrication/overgrease that for example the SD9VE Glock style pistol and Beretta 92 type pistols are more sensitive to the correct ammo than an Glock type pistol." isn't supported by your experiments with 9mm loads that are more lightly loaded than any commercial or military ammo ever created for a 9mm Luger pistol.

You can start with your lack of scientific method - you're not testing your Grease hypothesis across a wide selection of ammunition or a wide selection of "Glock style" pistols.

For your "Correct Ammo hypothesis - If you ran your experiment against a DiamondBack DB9, you'd find that the DB9 would function fine with the light loads, since it was most likely designed for common commercial 115gr standard pressure ammunition in the first place. You could then say that "Beretta 92 type pistols are more sensitive to the correct ammo than a DB9 type pistol", but that would be false. If you were then to run "correct" ammo like commercially available standard pressure 147gr or 124gr NATO ammunition through the DB9 - it would break.

Another problem with your testing method is that your're running these experiments all at the same time. You can't mess around with O-rings, grease and under-pressured ammo all at the same time and reach any valid conclusions about any of it.

 

[45_auto]

Overall I find the Taurus PT 92 is not racking the slide as Slick as it did when I tried it at the LGS. I wonder why since it is oiled properly. Back then it was not oiled at all.
Has anyone observed similar issues and getting the slide less Slick in the Taurus PT 92 AFS pistols? I assume there is no break in period needed.
Any suggestions and first hand observations/experiences are welcome.

Possibly a cracked locking block causing the slide to drag? Pretty common problem on the PT 92. Google "PT 92 broken locking block", you'll have lots of pages of info to look at.

I bought a brand new PT 99 AFS (adjustable sight version of the PT 92 AFS). About 6 months later the rear sight came off, I sent it back to the factory and they replaced it under warranty. It happened again a couple of months later and I requested that the slide be replaced with a PT 92 slide with fixed sights. They replaced the slide as requested with a PT 92 slide and about a month later the locking block broke and locked up the gun. Sent it back to them again, they replaced the barrel and locking block, I sold it when I got it back.

Warranty service was great, took about 2 weeks total each time I sent the gun back.