Beretta 92F slides cracking
Richard Cower
anyone have any information on this? I'd like to purchase one, but
am holding off pending news on this rumor.
thanks...Rich Cower, Aerojet Solids, Sacramento, CA 916.355.6104
Wendell Joost
injured when they were hit in the face with a chunk of slide which flew off
a Berretta. I have also heard that many of the problems have been because
people have been using 9mm loaded for use in open-bolt firing SMGs (tougher
primer, hotter l which should not be used in the Berretta.
Note that all of this is unsubstantiated rumor, standard disclaimers apply.
Nicholas C. Hester
in use by the military. These firearms have thousands of rounds more fired
through them than almost any civilian piece is likely to have. Beretta denies
that any cracks are the result of defective metal, and are instead the result
of military loads hotter than is called for in design specifications. The
result has been a redesign of the the slide to include a slide retention device
to prevent slide/frame seperations in the event of any crack failures.
To date Beretta states that no handgun leaves the factory with cracks and that
no _civilian_ handgun has developed this problem.
For my money, if you want a good 9mm, the Beretta is an excellent choice. It
handles well, has good pointability, and is extremely reliable. The open top
slide prevents jamming of retracted rounds. And it's one of the more accurate
of the 9mm's on the market.
Nicholas C. Hester
ia8...@Maine.Bitnet
ia8...@Maine.Maine.edu
Rob Boudrie
>through them than almost any civilian piece is likely to have. Beretta denies
>that any cracks are the result of defective metal, and are instead the result
>of military loads hotter than is called for in design specifications. The
>result has been a redesign of the the slide to include a slide retention
>device to prevent slide/frame seperations in the event of any crack failures.
Beretta does NOT make this slide retention device available in the non-
military market. Not for free. Not even if you want to pay for it. One can
conclude that :
a. Beretta believes themselves when they say this poses no hazard in
the civilian market.
.or. (old fortran hack here)
b. Beretta cannot incorporate this feature on new civilian guns, as that
would be an admission that the old guns are "unsafe", and necessitate
a recall campaign, and expose themselves to a higher tort risk in the
event a non-retrofitted slide cracks. [It may be cheaper to risk
a suit or two rather than pay for a massive recall campaign]
>To date Beretta states that no handgun leaves the factory with cracks and that
>no _civilian_ handgun has developed this problem.
All they have is empirical evidence. There has been no public CONCLUSIVE proof
as to the exact cause of the problem.
Phil Blais
>I have heard similar and also heard that one person was severely
>injured when they were hit in the face with a chunk of slide which flew off
>a Berretta. I have also heard that many of the problems have been because
>
Ditto for the following but I also "heard" that a broken slide killed
a U.S. Army soldier. For my money the Sig P226 is hard to beat.
phil blais <dcdwest!p...@ucsd.edu>
Ed Pendzik
>in use by the military. These firearms have thousands of rounds more fired
>through them than almost any civilian piece is likely to have. Beretta denies
>that any cracks are the result of defective metal, and are instead the result
>of military loads hotter than is called for in design specifications. The
>result has been a redesign of the the slide to include a slide retention device
>to prevent slide/frame seperations in the event of any crack failures.
there was a great article in a gun mag several months ago going into
every minute detail of the beretta 92sbf (or m9 as the identical
military version is called). it was excellent and and dispelled may
myths and false rumors. unfortunately I don't remember the name of the mag,
either shooting times or guns and ammo or something as popular.
in a nutshell there are only *3* cases of slide failure of any type on any
model 92 beretta pistol on the whole planet. If I can recall correctly
in one case the slide broke and a sailor (the user) was hit in the face with
a part of the slide. in two other cases cracks were noticed.
of the 3, 2 had a know number of rounds put thru them (lots, by seals)
and the 3rd had an unknown number put thru it (likely lots because
it was used for seal training)
congress and the military went apesh*t and did a large $ study of
beretta's mfg and heat treatment processes. nothing was found lacking.
a whole bunch of pistols were selected at random from the beretta factory
warehouse and military warehouses and subjected to extensive tests using
nato spec ammo. no evidence of failure, cracking or otherwise, was found
on any part of the guns.
the conclusion of the review board was that non nato spec (read +p+) ammo
must have been used on the pistols which developed the failures and a lot of
rounds must have been used of this hi power stuff.
>For my money, if you want a good 9mm, the Beretta is an excellent choice. It
>handles well, has good pointability, and is extremely reliable. The open top
>slide prevents jamming of retracted rounds. And it's one of the more accurate
>of the 9mm's on the market.
I have put many thousands of rounds thru a friends and I have not had a jam
yet. pretty accurate and a great all around pistol.
note that after winning the 1st round of military tests, legal action
prompted the gov. to run another competition. this time it was
production berettas selected at random from military warehouses against
hand built prototypes of "future models" of the smith&wesson and the
ruger (I think ruger, and no ohter manufacturer). not only did the beretta win
again, but the other 2 did not even meet minimum requirements.
I think that all this beretta bashing is by people who feel that
the military should have stuck with the M1911 and were further pissed that
a foreign company won (note newer beretta m9s and 92s are built in the us).
I have shot both and they are both great but a little different.
for what the military wanted (by definition a 9mm) I think they chose
correctly since the beretta is the best 9mm I have experienced.
Ed Pendzik
Robert Allen
>In article <1990Apr10.1...@ism.isc.com> Ia8...@Maine.Maine.edu (Nicholas C. Hester) writes:
>congress and the military went apesh*t and did a large $ study of
>beretta's mfg and heat treatment processes. nothing was found lacking.
>a whole bunch of pistols were selected at random from the beretta factory
>warehouse and military warehouses and subjected to extensive tests using
>nato spec ammo. no evidence of failure, cracking or otherwise, was found
>on any part of the guns.
Slide cracking is a potential problem with any aluminum framed, IMHO.
I've seen .45 Colt lightweight models with frame cracks. Aluminum,
aside from being an abrasive metal to machine, also cracks rather than
breaking or bending. Take an aluminum key and a steel key in a vise,
bend them. The aluminum will product splintery shards while the steel
will bend or produce short, nubby shards. Keep in mind that an alloy
frame is a *much* better grade of aluminum, and has been heat-treated.
But IMHO, I don't like aluminum for receivers.
I had a .380 Beretta in which the aluminum receiver got peened back by
the steel slide, so that had a heckuva time getting the slide off. Once
I broke off the peened metal it worked fine again.
>>For my money, if you want a good 9mm, the Beretta is an excellent choice. It
>>handles well, has good pointability, and is extremely reliable. The open top
>>slide prevents jamming of retracted rounds. And it's one of the more accurate
>>of the 9mm's on the market.
Agreed. I want one. But the trigger pull sucks.
>I have put many thousands of rounds thru a friends and I have not had a jam
>yet. pretty accurate and a great all around pistol.
They'll eat most anything.
>I think that all this beretta bashing is by people who feel that
>the military should have stuck with the M1911 and were further pissed that
>a foreign company won (note newer beretta m9s and 92s are built in the us).
>I have shot both and they are both great but a little different.
>for what the military wanted (by definition a 9mm) I think they chose
>correctly since the beretta is the best 9mm I have experienced.
Probably. I think they should have picked the Glock. However
the Glock isn't soldier-proof.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert Allen "Vote early, vote often." r...@sun.com
Disclaimer: Believe it or not, *nothing* I say or do in any way represents
the official opinions or beliefs of Sun Microsystems Inc. Got that?
Chris May
>prompted the gov. to run another competition. this time it was
>production berettas selected at random from military warehouses against
>hand built prototypes of "future models" of the smith&wesson and the
>ruger (I think ruger, and no ohter manufacturer). not only did the beretta win
>again, but the other 2 did not even meet minimum requirements.
As I recall, the Ruger P-85 was already in production in Prescott, Arizona
at the time of the second round of tests, and their guns were also selected
at random from the production line. And Ruger's 1990 catalog has a sidebar
claiming that they *did* meet the requirements; the military stuck with the
M9 anyway.--now called the M10 after the new tests. I'm doing this off
the top of my head so correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't know anything about the Smith, but suspect the same situation is probably true. They're all pretty good guns. I think the military ought to be using
the Glock 17, though.
--ccm
Stephen V. Boyle
For this one, I looked for a "Posted" date of 1 April, but I couldn't find
it, so ...
In article <1990Apr11.2...@ism.isc.com> ts...@gmuvax.gmu.edu writes:
>In article <1990Apr9.1...@ism.isc.com> hu...@granite.cr.bull.com (Thi Huynh) writes:
>>I have a Beretta 92F. I recently brought it to a gunsmith to install
>>Millett adj. sights. I just got it back and found out that a piece
>>of the Bruniton (thats what Beretta called their finish on F models)
>>finish had fallen off (due to banging by the gunsmith). ...
>
> I would just like to point out that this finish problem
>is just the first signs of a Beretta 92F slide failure.
Huh? How does a sloppy gunsmith correlate with slide failures? (Unless, of
course, the 'smith beat hell out of the slide and frame while otherwise
abusing the gun. It seems pretty clear that Mr. Huynh is convinced the
gunsmith damaged the finish on his 92F.
>I have discovered that using 9mm Luger rounds that have been loaded
>in a Lee p1000 progressive press will cause just such a failure.
Without any ancillary information or other explanation, (powder? amount?
bullet? seating depth? ad infinitum), I consider this to be irresponsible.
There are more than a few cases where rampant rumor or misunderstanding
of circumstances has damaged the reputation or otherwise besmirched the
integrity of manufacturers or equipment. Not providing at least a minimal
explanation of why the Lee P1000 in particular is inherently "dangerous"
causes me to dismiss the above.
>Department of the Army to inform them of this development.
I bet they've just been loading for bear with their P1000's.
-----
This one is a least a little more straightforward:
In article <1990Apr12....@ism.isc.com> e...@playroom.east.sun.com (Ed Pendzik) writes:
>there was a great article in a gun mag several months ago going into
>every minute detail of the beretta 92sbf (or m9 as the identical
>military version is called). it was excellent and and dispelled may
>myths and false rumors. unfortunately I don't remember the name of the mag,
American Handgunner, Jan/Feb 1990, "Beretta's M-10 9MM", by James E. Fender.
It *was* a good article - I only wish it had been a little more specific
with names of involved parties. American Handgunner has been a reliable
source, in my experience.
Quoting from the article:
"The Beretta M9s have experienced slide failures. The GAO has
reported that, as of October, 1988, a total of 16 M9 or military
owned 92Fs purchased prior to the award of the M9 contract were
known to have failed during field use and laboratory testing.
Four failures occurred during field use, and 12 during laboratory
testing. Field slide failures occurred in the hands of Navy special
warfare personnel. The military considers the slide failures to be
serious because when the slide fails without warning personal injury
can result, and has resulted."
My personal favorite, though, is:
"The Army was required to initiate another round of competition
for an additional 140,000 9mm handguns (the "M10" contract).
...This new round of testing and evaluation was not the result
of any perceived failure of the Beretta M9 to meet contract
specifications.
...The amendment mandating another round of competition was
placed in the Appropriations Act through the intervention of
members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation."
Now, if you don't see the humor in Massachusetts politicians trying to
protect Smith & Wesson ... :=)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Steve Boyle | "...Actually, FORTRAN was the language
sbo...@mbunix.mitre.org | of choice for the same reason that
The MITRE Corporation | three-legged races are popular."
Burlington Road |
Bedford, MA. 01730 | - Ken Thompson
(617) 271-2460 | 1984 Turing Award Lecture
David Munroe
>model 92 beretta pistol on the whole planet. If I can recall correctly
>in one case the slide broke and a sailor (the user) was hit in the face with
>a part of the slide. in two other cases cracks were noticed.
>of the 3, 2 had a know number of rounds put thru them (lots, by seals)
>and the 3rd had an unknown number put thru it (likely lots because
>it was used for seal training)
Yes, there was an extensive discussion in either Shooting Times or American
Handgunner sometime last fall. I haven't found the article yet (too many
gun magazines!) but I believe two cases required hospitalization. I think
that in all cases about 8000 to 10000 rounds had been fired in the guns that
failed and that existing Berettas are submitted for examination after every
5000 rounds.
>I think that all this beretta bashing is by people who feel that
>the military should have stuck with the M1911 and were further pissed that
>a foreign company won ...
Regardless, many owners or potential owners just want to know what's going
on. Wondering if your next shot is going to send the slide back at you can
certainly ruin your sight picture.
-Dave
Peter Kunz
>In article <1990Apr10.1...@ism.isc.com> Ia8...@Maine.Maine.edu (Nicholas C. Hester) writes:
>>for what the military wanted (by definition a 9mm) I think they chose
>>correctly since the beretta is the best 9mm I have experienced.
i think they should have taken a 10mm...
i prefer sig and still quite understand why the us didn't take it. i heard
rumors that it was too expensive (like all fine swiss engineering :-)
> Probably. I think they should have picked the Glock. However
> the Glock isn't soldier-proof.
?????????????? because it doesn't have a safety?
cu
pete
Peter Kunz P.O. Box 315 4106 Therwil Switzerland
NET: ru...@subch.imp.com or ru...@impch.imp.com PHONE: +41-61-737556
Steve Hix
>In article <1990Apr13.1...@ism.isc.com> r...@sun.com (Robert Allen) writes:
>>In article <1990Apr10.1...@ism.isc.com> Ia8...@Maine.Maine.edu (Nicholas C. Hester) writes:
>>>for what the military wanted (by definition a 9mm) I think they chose
>>>correctly since the beretta is the best 9mm I have experienced.
>
>i think they should have taken a 10mm...
At the time, 10mm wasn't a viable choice (not being in any sort of normal
production). But 10mm would be better...maybe during the next selection
go in 25 years or so...
>> Probably. I think they should have picked the Glock. However
The Glock wasn't available during the selection trials, since it wasn't
yet in production. The Austrians, Norwegians,...German GSG-9, and others
thought it was worth getting, though.
------------
"Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen,
we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..."
('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)
Ed Harris
with M882 military ammunition or +P+ law enforcement loadings which are
not available to the general public. The guns were being endurance tested
and failed under conditions of extreme abuse. I don't believe anyone has
documented a failoure having occurred with commercial ammunition under
normal use conditions. If you don't intend to fire the pistol with
super-hot handloads or misappropriated government property, I would see
no problem. The Beretta is a satisfactory pistol otherwise.
--
Ed Harris at The Black Cat's Shack (Fidonet 1:109/401)
Internet: Ed.H...@f123.n109.z1.fidonet.org
UUCP: ...!uunet!blkcat!123!Ed.Harris