Some things you learn in a Beretta armorers course...
The first is always interesting. Beretta is one of the oldest companies in the world still owned by the same family; founded in 1526
Beretta 92 series:
All parts are still forged/machined. No investment, MIM casting or stampings anywhere in the pistol.
Barrels are cold hammer forged, then chrome lined. All pistols meet a standard of 8" 10-shot groups at 50m before they leave the factory, most are much more accurate than that.
Each 92 is put in a machine and cycled 350 times to achieve break in.
The pistol as tested by the US Military has a 21,000 round mean time between failures.
The open top design facilitates topping off, making it easy to drop a round directly into the barrel and drop the slide. Contrary to most pistols, that is part of the design, and you will NOT damage an extractor dropping on a round in the chamber.
the trigger has bends on both ends, so if it breaks in the field, all you have to do is pop it out, put it in "backwards", and go; it becomes its own emergency replacement spring.
I agree that it is not really an issue, and in no way would it keep me from getting a beretta. Just pointing out that the record of reliability being 'unmatched' is a bit of a strong statement.
I agree that it is not really an issue, and in no way would it keep me from getting a beretta. Just pointing out that the record of reliability being 'unmatched' is a bit of a strong statement.
I think anyone stating "unmatched" is a bit of a strong statement.
The reliability of the Beretta 92 is world class, that much is clear. Are there more reliable pistols out there? I really don't know.
When this new pistol competition the Army's having gets to the testing phase, the Beretta 92 will be used as a control; that will be VERY interesting. My bet is most won't match the reliability of the Beretta 92...It's very much a perfected design and it's an extremely robust pistol.
the trigger has bends on both ends, so if it breaks in the field, all you have to do is pop it out, put it in "backwards", and go; it becomes its own emergency replacement spring.
You have a picture of that, or words someone slow can understand?
the trigger has bends on both ends, so if it breaks in the field, all you have to do is pop it out, put it in "backwards", and go; it becomes its own emergency replacement spring.
You have a picture of that, or words someone slow can understand?
Whether you like the esthetics or not. it's reliability is unmatched.
Yep, which is likely due to that fixed barrel design.
The barrel isn't fixed, it's just not tilting. It travels straight back and forth. Truth be told, the "direct line feed" that Beretta touts is no more or less "direct line" than a tilting barrel system. If you put a tilting barrel in the rearward position you'll see that the path to the barrel is about the same. What really matters is the care in which the pistol is made; and Beretta manufactures the 92FS exceptionally well.
And as best I can tell, Taurus makes their 92's extremely well also.
The main weakness of the Glock product is that in the hands of a person with less than average mental skills a Glock is more likely to fire when putting it into a holster, holding it with your finger on the trigger, sitting on it with the trigger uncovered or if in LA putting into your pants appendix style carry. As a matter of fact about 15 years ago IIRC here in Atlanta we had an inebriated low education voter who put a loaded glock back in the box with the little post in it, handedly killing himself. Glock stopped producing that box taking into account all such morons.
The caveat here is if you cannot pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel don't get a Glock.
In the hands of someone with an I.Q. above room temperature the G17 has acquitted itself very well over the years in self defense situations and in police departments everywhere. Kabooms have happened with more than one variety of pistol but I do admit I would not own a Glock in 40 smith and wesson for that very reason. On the other hand there are G17's out there with well over 50,000 rounds on them with no cleaning, I think one approaching 100,000.
You guys can wax poetic over your fixed barrel blue steel eyetalian pistols all you want, I would rather own a brick as long as it lasted forever, worked the same way every time, easily did its job of hitting things quickly and plentifully, and required about as much attention as said brick.
Jeff Cooper called it best..."Krunchintickers...an ingenious solution to a nonexistant problem".
I'm not picking a side between the Beretta vs. Glock but as a matter of interest, didn't that Chuck Taylor feller put over 400,000 rounds through a G17? I should dig around and see how his pistol fared as far as parts breakage, ect.
no one with the mental capacity of your standard run of the mill democrat should own a Glock. The device in the middle of the image, is called a trigger. keep your finger off of it while brushing your teeth, watching TV, making pancakes, watering the grass, only put your finger there when its time to shoot.
I'm not picking a side between the Beretta vs. Glock but as a matter of interest, didn't that Chuck Taylor feller put over 400,000 rounds through a G17? I should dig around and see how his pistol fared as far as parts breakage, ect.
i actually found his secret range. and if the guy wasnn't lying have one of his handguns. it's not a glock.
I'm not picking a side between the Beretta vs. Glock but as a matter of interest, didn't that Chuck Taylor feller put over 400,000 rounds through a G17? I should dig around and see how his pistol fared as far as parts breakage, ect.
i actually found his secret range. and if the guy wasnn't lying have one of his handguns. it's not a glock.
I've failed two of the USMC issue M9s along the way. One was a slide that completely broke at the lug cutout, the other was a locking block tearing away from the underside of the barrel.
Supposedly metallurgical f-ups that have been corrected.
In fairness, I also have broke the trigger spring on my own G17 after several thousand rounds.
I'm not picking a side between the Beretta vs. Glock but as a matter of interest, didn't that Chuck Taylor feller put over 400,000 rounds through a G17? I should dig around and see how his pistol fared as far as parts breakage, ect.
The main weakness of the Glock product is that in the hands of a person with less than average mental skills a Glock is more likely to fire when putting it into a holster, holding it with your finger on the trigger, sitting on it with the trigger uncovered or if in LA putting into your pants appendix style carry. As a matter of fact about 15 years ago IIRC here in Atlanta we had an inebriated low education voter who put a loaded glock back in the box with the little post in it, handedly killing himself. Glock stopped producing that box taking into account all such morons.
The caveat here is if you cannot pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel don't get a Glock.
In the hands of someone with an I.Q. above room temperature the G17 has acquitted itself very well over the years in self defense situations and in police departments everywhere. Kabooms have happened with more than one variety of pistol but I do admit I would not own a Glock in 40 smith and wesson for that very reason. On the other hand there are G17's out there with well over 50,000 rounds on them with no cleaning, I think one approaching 100,000.
You guys can wax poetic over your fixed barrel blue steel eyetalian pistols all you want, I would rather own a brick as long as it lasted forever, worked the same way every time, easily did its job of hitting things quickly and plentifully, and required about as much attention as said brick.
Jeff Cooper called it best..."Krunchintickers...an ingenious solution to a nonexistant problem".
http://www.beretta.com/en-us/fact-or-fiction/ In one test session, under Army supervision, twelve M9 pistols were pulled randomly from the production line and fired a total of 168,000 rounds without a single malfunction.
I'm thinking this "crunchenticker" can hold it's own with a Glock. Personally, I've witnessed far more issues with Glocks than Beretta 92's, but much of that was due to customization of said Glocks.
Jeff Cooper must have been wrong! if you don't know any better an ingenious solution to a non existent problem works better than nothing.
On the other hand you pull the Glock trigger 5 times it pulls the exact same way 5 times, except of course if I have a piece of string in my holster (thanks Travis).
it's whatever, some like to polish their pistols and take pride in owning the arcane. I also hate Glocks, as well! I hate them because I have to decide between a new Gen 4 19 or a boat anchor G30...
Glock has a cult like following. I heard/read more irrational, hyperbolic, or just plain goofy stuff about Glock's than any other pistol combined. There are some who just think it's the ultimate tool, the greatest invention mankind has ever created. For those people, you can't really tell them anything; they will not accept that a Glock is every bit as "mortal" as the other top grade pistols...oh hell no, it's miles above the rest. They are the kool aid drinkers.
So Jimmy, I'm not actually advocating any one pistol over another, nor am I saying there's anything wrong with preferring a Glock. But when you get all gushy over how awesome a Glock is on a thread where we're just talking about various minutia about the Beretta 92; well it just makes you look like one of those exceptionally insecure people who are scared to death there's some slim chance you don't have it all figured out.
I personally think the Beretta 92 is ever bit as reliable as any Glock, and under certain conditions could be even more reliable (and under certain circumstances a Glock can be more reliable than the 92). Regardless, both have proven to be as reliable as a crow bar.
I tend to shoot a Beretta much better than a Glock because I've yet to see a Glock that was as accurate as a 92 or had a trigger that was nearly as good. I personally don't have any issue with the transition from DA to SA; but that's just me.
On the other hand, the ergonomics of the Beretta are just plain inferior to most Glocks, and the slide mounted safety...well, if you're going to put a safety on a handgun, that's NOT where you put one.
I happen to think the Glock 19 is a damn near perfect daily concealed carry pistol even though they're butt-ugly.
I honestly don't give a rats-azz what Cooper says because I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I don't disrespect Cooper, in fact I really thank him for the modern technique. And had I grown up in his generation I too would have thought the 1911 was the end all. But the 1911 isn't even close to being in the same league as the Beretta 92 for reliability; it's just not.
Now I happen to be a fan of the Beretta 92, but I certainly don't think it's the END ALL; it's just a damn good pistol. I'm a big fan of the the Glock 19/23 because they're just freaking awesome pistols; but I don't think they're right for everyone. And as fantastic as they are, they do have their issues (few that they are).
I also happen to think that straight up world class pistols can be had from S&W, CZ, Sig, and H&K.
So settle down and relax. No one's kicking around your Glock, and even if they were, such thing are not a personal attack on your character or decision making process.
Hmm, my post seems to have missed the mark since it wasn't about Glocks or Berettas per se. What I was trying to point out was human nature and the unfailing comedy of egos at work.
Let someone say something good or even objectively point out the good things about anything, for instance, "here's some interesting things about a Beretta 92", but it could be a brand of car, another brand of handgun, rifle, whatever, and invariably many people see that and do not think, "hmm, here's an objective statement or subjective opinion about something", rather they think, "well, you're not touting MY brand of car/handgun/rifle/whatever, so what you're really doing is saying this thing is better than what I own, and further you must think what I own really stinks, and because I derive my ego identity from my possessions if you think what I own stinks then you must think I'm an idiot for owning it, so now I have to attack whatever you said good things about and play up the thing I own as the best thing in the world because I know in my heart that you didn't really mean to say something nice about something unrelated to me, what you really meant to do was directly and openly attack me personally."
But "What is read: 'Glocks suck!'" seemed a bit more pithy...
Some people like to say Glock has a "cult like following".
A 'cult' is a small group with a generally unpopular belief.
Glock success is anything but cult like. Glock is Mainstream +P. It's a household name. Embraced by the citizenry, LE and Military.
I tend to equate cult with an irrational belief. It would be completely rational to like the Glock, but there are several who take it to the point of being irrational; hence the cult like following.
I am not going to write a book on the subject, however as we meander into the 21st century, one has to wonder how many cult like Glock's are sold compared to the Baretta? Perhaps the more important question might be, "why" do most people like the crappy plastic Glock over the fine blue steel family made heirloom model 92 pistol?
Secondly I did clearly state that if you had the I.Q. of a toaster oven you would be better off with something else. Thus for the record I agree and admit that there is clear logic behind both training wheels on a kids bicycle and the double-single action semiautomatic pistol action, the Baretta fills this role perfectly! So you see we are in agreement on this!
The frame is not steel. As for looks, the Beretta looks like a machine to me. It is not beautiful, but is attractive. Glock the same, but more homely. Both are good tools and I would own a 92, bought cheap. Will actually use my G19.
I actually like shooting the M9. They run great, and are quite accurate. After adopting the M9, The USMC had to up the qual scores because the old standard based on the 1911A1 was too easily achieved with the M9.
I have a question, just an honest question. Do the current manufacture M92s have the Slide Capture Device on them?
If you don't know what I'm talking about, look for a circular disc on the left side of the frame sticking out above the left grip panel, and look for a groove milled into the underside of the left rear slide rail, for the disc to ride in.
If you see these features, they are designed to hold the rear half of the slide on the gun if it totally fails, saving your teeth. If the early M9 slide failures were a fluke, this slide capture device should no longer be needed.
, "well, you're not touting MY brand of car/handgun/rifle/whatever, so what you're really doing is saying this thing is better than what I own, and further you must think what I own really stinks, and because I derive my ego identity from my possessions if you think what I own stinks then you must think I'm an idiot for owning it, what you really meant to do was directly and openly attack me personally."
I actually like shooting the M9. They run great, and are quite accurate. After adopting the M9, The USMC had to up the qual scores because the old standard based on the 1911A1 was too easily achieved with the M9.
I have a question, just an honest question. Do the current manufacture M92s have the Slide Capture Device on them?
If you don't know what I'm talking about, look for a circular disc on the left side of the frame sticking out above the left grip panel, and look for a groove milled into the underside of the left rear slide rail, for the disc to ride in.
If you see these features, they are designed to hold the rear half of the slide on the gun if it totally fails, saving your teeth. If the early M9 slide failures were a fluke, this slide capture device should no longer be needed.
Yes they do have the slide capture devise. And there was some fluke in the early slides failures, but some of it was legit. Some were traced to Italian slides that had the wrong steel; those were the majority of the failed slides that came completely off the gun.
But the other issue had to do with the fact that the Beretta 92 was designed for standard pressure 9mm, and at the last minute, the US Military adopted the British spec 9mma ammo that would become the NATO standard. So the Beretta 92's slide had to be revamped to accomodate the new pressure standard.
In all fairness, it should be noted that the NATO ammo caused a complete re-design of Sig's slides as well.
The slide capture device isn't really needed but why not keep it since it really doesn't hurt anything...and on the off chance that someone does break their slide, and decide "Hey let's see how long before the slide completely comes apart".
crazy stuff, a cult like following, Glock perfection, a $100 pistol that costs $550, plastic crap, matty mattel, lions laying down with sheep, when will it end!
Frankly to me it is just a complete mystery that the Glock 19 for $570 with its abortion of a trigger, its plastic magazines, its cheap plastic sights, just simply outsells the much better constructed and quality Beretta Inox retailing at $690.00.
crazy stuff, a cult like following, Glock perfection, a $100 pistol that costs $550, plastic crap, matty mattel, lions laying down with sheep, when will it end!
Frankly to me it is just a complete mystery that the Glock 19 for $570 with its abortion of a trigger, its plastic magazines, its cheap plastic sights, just simply outsells the much better constructed and quality Beretta Inox retailing at $690.00.
Jeff Cooper must have been wrong! if you don't know any better an ingenious solution to a non existent problem works better than nothing.
On the other hand you pull the Glock trigger 5 times it pulls the exact same way 5 times, except of course if I have a piece of string in my holster (thanks Travis).
I've found it mildly amusing that according to Jeff Cooper, in his own writing, when he wasn't packing a 1911 around, his more discrete carry pistol was a 38 special revolver.
crazy stuff, a cult like following, Glock perfection, a $100 pistol that costs $550, plastic crap, matty mattel, lions laying down with sheep, when will it end!
Frankly to me it is just a complete mystery that the Glock 19 for $570 with its abortion of a trigger, its plastic magazines, its cheap plastic sights, just simply outsells the much better constructed and quality Beretta Inox retailing at $690.00.
This issue USAR M9 has had 20,000+ rounds of M882 ball through it. Used as an instruction/demo gun by Service Pistol Team members, it has the original barrel, locking block and slide and hasn't malfunctioned (yet). Bob
This issue USAR M9 has had 20,000+ rounds of M882 ball through it. Used as an instruction/demo gun by Service Pistol Team members, it has the original barrel, locking block and slide and hasn't malfunctioned (yet). Bob
But, but, but............that's not possible; only Glocks can do that.
There is nothing wrong with the Beretta. I would have bought one when I started law enforcement, but I wanted a .45. So Glock it was, back in '95 there wasn't many options in a good semi.
Believe or not, one of the instructors frowned on 1911's, because they where single actions with lighter triggers. Now before y'all get pizzy about that remember there were lots of females and non shooters in the bunch. They also claimed the 1911 wasn't as reliable with some hollow points in their opinion.
The only other auto I had experience with was a 459 S&W. I didn't like it much. Creepy trigger, just the general feel of it.
Colt had the Double Eagle, but they were hard to find and more expensive. Same with Browning autos and again a 9 mm.
I will not argue that the 92 is a bad pistol, it is just my opinion that something like a Glock action, or M&P or Croatian Sprungfield action etc. is a better choice. Even the poor old 1911 shoots the same way each trigger pull! This is just my poor way of thinking and as is well known I am not a pistoleros or a double naught spy.
Imo, if you shoot a da/sa roughly the same amount of rounds that you would a striker fired gun...say in a typical weekend training class you won't even remember why you supposedly couldn't shoot a Da/Sa
I will not argue that the 92 is a bad pistol, it is just my opinion that something like a Glock action, or M&P or Croatian Sprungfield action etc. is a better choice. Even the poor old 1911 shoots the same way each trigger pull! This is just my poor way of thinking and as is well known I am not a pistoleros or a double naught spy.
That's my opinion on the matter, too. You can train to the transition, of course, but better to avoid the issue completely where possible.
Imo, if you shoot a da/sa roughly the same amount of rounds that you would a striker fired gun...say in a typical weekend training class you won't even remember why you supposedly couldn't shoot a Da/Sa
You know, I started this thread just to share something I found interesting...Didn't realize the Glock dudes would be so offended that there's another pistol somewhere in the world that is made with quality.
![[Linked Image]](http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff205/Jimmyp50/idiotswitch_zpssem1ytaa.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s260.photobucket.com/user/RobertOIF2/media/1%202_zpskqdmra7p.jpg.html)
