bountyhunter
member
You aren't the only one. The test courses were increased in difficulty after the M9 adoption because everybody was making expert.
WARNING: Beretta 92F slide cracks...
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
You aren't the only one. The test courses were increased in difficulty after the M9 adoption because everybody was making expert.
bountyhunter
member
Beretta redesigned that part to beef it up to eliminate the weakness. langdon tactical Technologies also sells a beefier block. FWIW, I have somewhere between 15k and 20k rounds on my "weak" block and I'm not going to replace it until it fails.... if I live that long.
I don't own a Beretta. I have intention of owning a Beretta. But in a former life I witnessed many thousands of rounds go downrange from Beretta's without ever seeing a single mechanical failure. As a matter of fact I also didn't see any malfuctions except for those that were deliberately induced in order to practice malfunction drills.
M9's/92's are fine firearms just like many others. And just like many others they also have a few issues. I would not hesitate to carry one into battle except that they are chambered for what I consider a wimpy caliber.
Regards,
Happyguy
M9's/92's are fine firearms just like many others. And just like many others they also have a few issues. I would not hesitate to carry one into battle except that they are chambered for what I consider a wimpy caliber.
Regards,
Happyguy
Just .02........
I have never owned a Beretta 92, though I have tried a few Nines over the years. My primary complaint is the 'stopping power' of 9m/m ball.
Hollowpoints make the Nine a little better. But still not enough that I would carry a Nine over a .45, whether or none it holds twice as many projectiles.
Second, is the size of the Beretta....for a replacement to a pistol that was consider too large, we ended up with a larger pistol, with a longer trigger reach and pull. I suppose it is OK for holster wear, but hard for smaller hands to work it.
I have seen a cracked Beretta slide up close and personal at a firearms class and it was scary. Nothing but Air all the way through, fortunately it was seen before more rounds were put through it. The instructor used to carry a Beretta, but choses Sigs now.
Back in 1979, while stationed on the tropical paradise known as Naval Station Adak, Alaska...I got to shoot about five of the beat up 1911A1;s that had seen their share of history. Dispite crappy sights and trigger, all the ones I fire would put their rounds in a 3 inch circle at 50 feet(not all shooters could do this, of course). We had no problems with breakage or mechanical difficulties of these pistols that at minimum were 34 years old.
I have had quite a few .45 auto's since 1976, though I have never had the high round counts being mentioned. The only dog's in my.45 caliber experience was a AO 1911A1 and a Firestar. I actually find it satisfying to hear of all the adaptations and special ops use of the 1911...bigger bullets work better expecially in ball for stopping aggressive folks.
Those of you that like them, can have them.
Jercamp45
I have never owned a Beretta 92, though I have tried a few Nines over the years. My primary complaint is the 'stopping power' of 9m/m ball.
Hollowpoints make the Nine a little better. But still not enough that I would carry a Nine over a .45, whether or none it holds twice as many projectiles.
Second, is the size of the Beretta....for a replacement to a pistol that was consider too large, we ended up with a larger pistol, with a longer trigger reach and pull. I suppose it is OK for holster wear, but hard for smaller hands to work it.
I have seen a cracked Beretta slide up close and personal at a firearms class and it was scary. Nothing but Air all the way through, fortunately it was seen before more rounds were put through it. The instructor used to carry a Beretta, but choses Sigs now.
Back in 1979, while stationed on the tropical paradise known as Naval Station Adak, Alaska...I got to shoot about five of the beat up 1911A1;s that had seen their share of history. Dispite crappy sights and trigger, all the ones I fire would put their rounds in a 3 inch circle at 50 feet(not all shooters could do this, of course). We had no problems with breakage or mechanical difficulties of these pistols that at minimum were 34 years old.
I have had quite a few .45 auto's since 1976, though I have never had the high round counts being mentioned. The only dog's in my.45 caliber experience was a AO 1911A1 and a Firestar. I actually find it satisfying to hear of all the adaptations and special ops use of the 1911...bigger bullets work better expecially in ball for stopping aggressive folks.
Those of you that like them, can have them.
Jercamp45
DualBerettas
Member
they also had the locking block so when your locking mechanism broke...you'd only have to replace a $40 locking block....not a $200 new barrel...
amazes me how a 9mm (.36 caliber bullet that's fast) is somehow puny but a .45 will knock 'em down in one shot...
Come on, .09" doesn't make all that much difference...
Even if it did, 8 rounds of .45 vs. 16 rounds of 9mm...just double tap...then you'd get two .36 holes or one .72 hole (about the size of a 12 ga. shotgun slug)
i think two .36 holes would let out more blood than 1 .45 hole...right? how about that .72, not to mention you have quicker follow up shots with less recoil allowing for more accurate shot placement...
Not to mention more versatility with having more rounds...
DB
amazes me how a 9mm (.36 caliber bullet that's fast) is somehow puny but a .45 will knock 'em down in one shot...
Come on, .09" doesn't make all that much difference...
Even if it did, 8 rounds of .45 vs. 16 rounds of 9mm...just double tap...then you'd get two .36 holes or one .72 hole (about the size of a 12 ga. shotgun slug)
i think two .36 holes would let out more blood than 1 .45 hole...right? how about that .72, not to mention you have quicker follow up shots with less recoil allowing for more accurate shot placement...
Not to mention more versatility with having more rounds...
DB
tiberius
Member
I’m not making any claims as to relative effectiveness (religious discussion and all
) but the above math is a bit silly. You don’t compare calibers by their diameter. Either cross sectional area or weight make more relevance. On either measure the .45 hardball is NEARLY twice the size of the 9mm hardball. So .45 hardball will produce a hole approximately twice as big as 9mm hardball.9mm = .354†= 0.098 in2, 124gr
.45 = .451†= 0.1597in2, 230 gr.
fastbolt
Member
I also was forwarded a complete copy of the notification from a friend who's a retired cop/instructor/armorer, and who still teaches ...
Machines wear and occasionally break ... especially with extended service use and improper maintenance ...
This isn't a surprise to anyone ...
I saw a civilian (non-military) Beretta slide that exhibited a crack back in '90 ... and while I was away at a firearm's instructor school I listened to some other L/E instructors and armorers tell of their personal experiences with cracked slides.
I've seen a locking block in a 9mm Beretta fail in such a manner that it damaged the frame beyond repair ...
I've talked to a Beretta armorer who said he was told by Beretta that they were "supposed" to have replaced their recoil springs every 2,000 rounds (9mm model) ...
One of the local agencies I know who issues Berettas adopted .40 S&W models AFTER they'd started to experience locking block failure on some 9mm models ... but I was told they'll maintain them a bit differently.
Another retired friend who was a L/E operator/instructor/armorer for many years told me of an agency who has a sign by a door in the agency ... this agency issues Berettas, by the way ... and it supposedly reads something to the effect "Lubricate your weapons or die".
Bottom line? While I personally don't care for the size and ergonomics of the Beretta ... as long as the weapon is frequently cleaned & properly maintained, including being LUBRICATED ... the recoil spring replaced on some periodic basis (round count) ... and good quality ammunition is used ... I wouldn't worry overly much about carrying one.
Machines wear and occasionally break ... especially with extended service use and improper maintenance ...
This isn't a surprise to anyone ...
I saw a civilian (non-military) Beretta slide that exhibited a crack back in '90 ... and while I was away at a firearm's instructor school I listened to some other L/E instructors and armorers tell of their personal experiences with cracked slides.
I've seen a locking block in a 9mm Beretta fail in such a manner that it damaged the frame beyond repair ...
I've talked to a Beretta armorer who said he was told by Beretta that they were "supposed" to have replaced their recoil springs every 2,000 rounds (9mm model) ...
One of the local agencies I know who issues Berettas adopted .40 S&W models AFTER they'd started to experience locking block failure on some 9mm models ... but I was told they'll maintain them a bit differently.
Another retired friend who was a L/E operator/instructor/armorer for many years told me of an agency who has a sign by a door in the agency ... this agency issues Berettas, by the way ... and it supposedly reads something to the effect "Lubricate your weapons or die".
Bottom line? While I personally don't care for the size and ergonomics of the Beretta ... as long as the weapon is frequently cleaned & properly maintained, including being LUBRICATED ... the recoil spring replaced on some periodic basis (round count) ... and good quality ammunition is used ... I wouldn't worry overly much about carrying one.
bountyhunter
member
NO, I have it on good authority that the .45 doesn't just knock them down, it sends them flying backwards through the air and they land stone dead.
This is contradicted somewhat by reality: we had a shooting here at our local range where one of the workers put two .45 rounds into a guy threatening him with a gun at about ten feet distance. One round in the arm, the other straight through the chest. The perp ran off and got quite a ways away before being caught. he lived and was convicted. The cops recovered the slugs. neither expanded as advertised although it was "name brand" defense ammo. Something to think about if your .45 defense gun has a barrel less than 5". You don't have to lose much velocity before the hollow points turn into "ball" ammo.
bradvanhorn
Member
I'll digress from the original thread for a moment...
I love hearing stuff like that. It's great fiction; not even close to reality. Every once in a while I hear something like that from an old combat vet, and I politely nod my head and thank them for their service to our country. I'm a combat vet myself, so I could debate the point, but if they remember seeing the guy fly 10 feet backwards, landing spread eagled and stone dead, then that's their memory, and I won't try to convince them their memory isn't really possible; not with most military sidearms anyway.
Let's think about this for a minute. You have to use pretty stout loads to knock down bowling pins (regulation pins weigh about 3 1/2 lbs); now think about that load striking a human weighing 40-50 times (or more for some of us) the pin .
I saw one author who did a great job of demonstrating how the whole flying through the air thing was impossible. As I recall, the author put the kinetic energy in context by comparing the kinetic energy of a bullet with that of a baseball. Basically the energy calculations show that in a typical line-drive hit, a baseball will carry something like two or three times as much energy as a 45ACP bullet fired at close range.
Now I've been fortunate in that I've never been hit by any lead sent my way. But, I have been hit with a hard line-drive a few times, and it was a bit painful, but it didn't knock me anywhere. If I fell down (not flying backward mind you), it was in reaction to pain, not because of the energy transfer.
It boils down to basic physics. A 230gr 45ACP bullet does not carry enough kinetic energy to knock down a human being (maybe an infant or toddler), much less make them fly anywhere.
Anyway, I'm not trying to criticize anyone here, just point out a favorite myth about "knock down power".
I love hearing stuff like that. It's great fiction; not even close to reality. Every once in a while I hear something like that from an old combat vet, and I politely nod my head and thank them for their service to our country. I'm a combat vet myself, so I could debate the point, but if they remember seeing the guy fly 10 feet backwards, landing spread eagled and stone dead, then that's their memory, and I won't try to convince them their memory isn't really possible; not with most military sidearms anyway.
Let's think about this for a minute. You have to use pretty stout loads to knock down bowling pins (regulation pins weigh about 3 1/2 lbs); now think about that load striking a human weighing 40-50 times (or more for some of us) the pin .
I saw one author who did a great job of demonstrating how the whole flying through the air thing was impossible. As I recall, the author put the kinetic energy in context by comparing the kinetic energy of a bullet with that of a baseball. Basically the energy calculations show that in a typical line-drive hit, a baseball will carry something like two or three times as much energy as a 45ACP bullet fired at close range.
Now I've been fortunate in that I've never been hit by any lead sent my way. But, I have been hit with a hard line-drive a few times, and it was a bit painful, but it didn't knock me anywhere. If I fell down (not flying backward mind you), it was in reaction to pain, not because of the energy transfer.
It boils down to basic physics. A 230gr 45ACP bullet does not carry enough kinetic energy to knock down a human being (maybe an infant or toddler), much less make them fly anywhere.
Anyway, I'm not trying to criticize anyone here, just point out a favorite myth about "knock down power".
- Status
