Suppressors why no beretta love?

1shot2kill

1shot2kill

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 9, 2008
1,323
9
40
north dakota
#1
i have noticed that there is no love for beretta pistols on this site in fact a lot of bashing goes on and i was wondering why sure the military has had a fair share of problems with them due to the crap magazines but most guns i can think of have had rough patches so lets here some feedback
 
#3
Re: why no beretta love?

I had one and I sold it. It shot fine, I just knew that I would eventually shoot it out like the ones I used at work. I'm not a huge 9mm fan although I carry a Walther PPS 9mm for it's small design. My thoughts are if I'm going to have a full size gun like the 92FS then I might as well have a 45acp or at minimum a 40S&W.
 
#4
Re: why no beretta love?

Well, I suppose if I couldn't have a Sig, or an HK, or a 1911/2011, or...etc., then I wouldn't turn my nose up at an Italian-made 92!
wink.gif


Seriously, I have owned and shot various Beretta pistols over the years (mostly 92FS pistols) and I don't have any problems with them for the most part. Whether it was just my luck or an issue across the board, I always had better service from the Italian-made pistols versus the USA pistols. The fit (slide-to-frame, pins, fire control, etc.)/finish/overall quality of the Italian pistols was always better compared to the USA models I owned.

For me personally, I would just prefer something else...but that is not meant as a knock to the Berettas at all.
 
#5
Re: why no beretta love?

I am an avid shooter of Glocks, HK, and 1911's. I used the Beretta in the military and never found it to be a comfortable gun to shoot. I believe there are more efficient ways to have a safety on the weapon. I like the Frame mounted safeties of the HK and 1911's and the trigger safety of the Glock.
If Beretta would have done the safety like the Taurus I would have been more interested. The link below is the Taurus 92

http://www.taurususa.com/product-details...eadcrumbseries=
 
#7
Re: why no beretta love?

I know, I have a place in my heart for the 92fs. I actually love shooing them. I've had, ready for this, 3 of them. Plus I carried one in the Corps. Honestly, I've never had a problem with one. I know there are better guns, but I can't help it, I just like the damn things. The trigger feels like ass, too much overtravel too much slop. The double action pulls super sucks. Accuracy is a tad above a Smith and wesson 5906 but I still like em, maybe I saw lethal weapon and die hard one too many times, maybe because it was my issue pistol. Whatever the reason I get all warm and fuzzy for them.

having said that, I have known others to have problems with their 92fs.
 
#11
Re: why no beretta love?

Awesome shotguns and so/so pistols.

They once lost a new handgun (mine on my FFL)that I returned for warranty service. Ran a UPS trace to their person that received it. 8 weeks later I got my new handgun back in a box that looked like an elephant stepped on it (missing the manual & cleaning rod). I bitched to get a replacement box and original stuff. Got it them promptly sold it.

(Happy ending)
 
#14
Re: why no beretta love?

I'm normally a revolver gun, but for autos I mostly shoot a 1911a1 and series 70 Gold cup.

But:

I got an offer of a job training cops in Afgan (assuming this old man can pass the phyical). I'll have to qualify and carry a M9. But until reciently I never shot one. I skated when they came out, I was in the NG and in a position where I could keep my M1911A1. When I had to qualify I'd use it.

Anyway I got to wondering about the Beretta and my wife bought me a 92FS so I could practice. I've shot the heck out of it the last couple weeks and I kind of like it. Mine works flawlessly, even with some junk cast buttets.

I've been researching, and talking with people who have used them quite heavely and have found out for the most part the are highly reliable (assuming proper mags) and fairly accurate.

I will admit, if I had the choice I'd carry my USGI 1911a1 or my Smith Model 28, but I don't. From my research I feel the Beretta will get me by. Anyway, I guess I'm gonna find out.
 
#15
Re: why no beretta love?

I dont mind it. However sand + issue mags = shitty. I know many guys who've been in iraq and had issues with their M9's and sand.

Asscrackistan is a different ball of wax (north).
 
#16
Re: why no beretta love?

This one's going to be long......

For starters, I like the Beretta M9/92FS, and have fired tens of thousands of rounds through them while carrying one for a living for the last 16 years. They're not my favorite, but they do work, and very well at that. I don't own one as my issued weapon has always satisfied my needs, but eventually I will get my own.

Why no love? Many reasons, both warranted and unwarranted.

It's not a classic like the 1911, nor does it have an iconic designer like Mr. Browning to its credit. It's also the weapon that took the place of the 1911, so everyone automatically hated it just like the M16 vs. the M14 or "new dad vs. real dad". It's been called a bunch of dirty names like "pea shooter, spaghetti slinger, and Italian tomahawk." They also had problems in the beginning that gave them a bad name and everyone likes to bring up to this day.

Being DA/SA today doesn't help either, especially for lifetime Glock/1911 shooters who try them out and bury the first DA shot into the ground 5yds in front of their target. Instead of blaming their crappy trigger control and fundamentals they automatically cuss the trigger and say the weapon is at fault. Typical range excuses and I see it all the time. I've heard there are some fixes out there for the triggers to help them, but I've never tried them as messing with issued weapons is an absolute no-go.

They also don't conceal well as they're a large service pistol. I admit my CCW at home is a Glock 19. I could conceal one but nowhere near as easy as a compact Glock and I also don't have to deal with a safety lever digging into my side.

You can't tinker with them like a 1911, and there certainly isn't 50+ pages of aftermarket parts for them in the Brownell's catalog either. Mostly because you don't need it. These pistols work. Yes, they break locking blocks after several thousand rounds. I've broken two myself through some very hard use with NATO ammo. But a lot of weapons will break something or other after 20k rounds including Glocks, Sigs and all the rest of the popular brands.

They don't malfunction often, quite frankly they very rarely malfunction unless you're limp wristing them or have zero lubrication on the rails. When they do have a malfunction though a simple immediate action will clear it 99% of the time because of the 180*+ exposure of the chamber area. Anything in there will drop free as soon as you pull back on the slide, and the only cause to go into remedial action is if you have a failure to extract which I've not seen myself. Right now I'm up around 9k rounds since my last stoppage/malfunction including a lot of cheap steel cased ammo HOPING for a chance to induce a stoppage mid-string. I just can't make it happen though but I also clean it, keep some lube on the rails and know how to shoot it right.

I do hate the slide mounted decock lever. I never use it as a safety anymore, as it's always on "fire" (a double action weapon is a safe weapon), but it does require training and practice to keep from putting it on safe when actioning the slide. I prefer the grip style of the Sig.

As for the grip being too large, I've never had a problem training lots of small handed men and women to shoot it well, so I don't know what the problem there is. The capacity of factory mags leaves a bit to be desired for its size, but I use Italian made Mec-Gar 17 round flush fit polished blued magazines, and their performance is nothing short of excellent.

9mm vs. 45, not going there as that one has been beaten to death time and time again, and they both provide the necessary terminal ballistics to do the job. Ford/Chevy or Yankees/Red Sox, only more emotional. Take your pick.

The bottom line, for me at least, is they're an excellent weapon for service carry. Would I use one for competitions? Yes simply because of my extensive experience and familiarity with them, but not when absolute accuracy is the main theme. A tuned 1911 will beat it in that category any day of the week.
 
#17
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dont mind it. However sand + issue mags = shitty. I know many guys who've been in iraq and had issues with their M9's and sand.

Asscrackistan is a different ball of wax (north).</div></div>

Any special considerations for the Beretta in Afgan????????????
 
#18
Re: why no beretta love?

I actually found M9/92FS to be easy to tinker with. There is a step by step how to video for everything on arfcom. I used to install the match hammer and "D" mainspring and it really helped the DA trigger pull.
 
#19
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alderleet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dont mind it. However sand + issue mags = shitty. I know many guys who've been in iraq and had issues with their M9's and sand.

Asscrackistan is a different ball of wax (north). </div></div>


Another one of those guys that "heard" if from other guys about problems they say they had.

Lets talk first hand experience here.

First off, keep your damn weapon clean. Why is it every fuckhead out there bitches about this being a problem? I have years in iraq/afghan and never had a stoppage due to a dirty weapon. This isn't because all my time was spent in an office, it's because weapon maintenance is a constant thing and I was always on top of it. Before you feed or clean yourself your weapon is clean. It's the turds that would go days without cleaning their weapon then blame it on the lack of reliability.


There isn't a damn thing wrong with the Beretta. It's simply outdated. There are better choices out there now.

If you can't shoot that pistol, and shoot it very accurately. Guess you need to practice more.

A DA/SA pistol is a problem? jesus, really? Again, more practice needed so your not jerking your shots like an amateur.

 
#21
Re: why no beretta love?

In a nutshell, the Beretta 92F/S is not the best but also far from the worst pistol. I have a few 92's and actually wore out one. I've shot it in competition for quite awhile as well.

-The grip is fat...... you get used to it.
-Keep it lubed (they like to run wet) and it dead reliable.
-Use OEM mags only.
-Locking Block is a consumable part... Never broke one but D/E@~25K
-DA trigger (D-spring can help)....you get used to it and don't even notice it.
-NEVER EVER use the safety

Every pistol has it's pro's and con's. What you prefer depends on what you can live with and what you can't.

My wish list: I would like Beretta to come out with an enclosed slide (sacrilege, I know) and frame mounted safety.
 
#22
Re: why no beretta love?

my main 2 shooters 92 fs police trade in made in 1986
and beretta elite 2
33biyi9.jpg

the 3rd gun is my m951 brigadier never been fired and i have the original box and sleeve
350to8w.jpg

the frame mounted safety i have heard alot of people say that can someone explain to me the desire for that
 
#23
Re: why no beretta love?

I have been a small arms instructor in both the Marine Corps and the US Army and I have never had any real issues with the M9 that proper cleaning and handling would not solve. The weak link is the magazine. If you use some of the new cheap magazines being issued, you might have problems, but the originals work fine. Allot of guys blame the pistol for not being a Colt 1911. This is a hold over from the time that most combat arms soldiers were familiar with the 1911. Now that we have very few soldiers familiar with it, I hear fewer complaints. Yes Yes I know, 25 years ago there were some cracked frames and slides. I have not heard of any in many years. I think it is a fine pistol. I will be depending on it in May when I go on another deployement. I am confident it can handle my needs.
 
#24
Re: why no beretta love?

I have never owned a 92 but did have an 84 or 85F (can't remember # but it was a single stack .380) once upon a time. It was a good shooting little pistol. The 87 Cheetah is another one I'd like to have some day.

I have always liked the look of the 92 but have only gotten a chance to shoot one a time or two. A shooting buddy of mine had one that he'd done a trigger job on and it was amazing. The DA was still a DA pull but smooth as glass. The SA felt very similar to a couple of 1911's I own.

IIRC, one of the shows on History or Discovery channel included a story on the AMU pistol team. The results their armorers were getting out of the pistols was very impressive. I believe it was bullseye competition but might be remembering wrong.
 
#26
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
the frame mounted safety i have heard alot of people say that can someone explain to me the desire for that </div></div>

I think it has mostly to do with altering your grip in order to de-cock the gun or, if the safety is in the on position it's not the most natural to sweep off with smaller hands.

I don't have experience with one but if someones only gripe with the Beretta was the safely location the Taurus PT 92/99's are a similar guns and have the frame mounted controls.

I've got a Beretta 92 Brigadier Elite I bought used and I like mine. I don't shoot it all that often anymore (using a 1911 mostly) but I've never had any problems with it in 3000 rounds and been great so far.

I do think that there are other handguns out now that the Beretta is no longer the cutting edge anymore. Seems as there are not all that may "new handguns" with the DA/SA trigger system anymore. It seems like more and more there are the constant pull triggers such as HK's LEM, the SIG DAK, SAO like the 1911's, and all the Striker fired ones with trigger pulls the same from the first shot to the last shot.

JMC
 
#28
Re: why no beretta love?

As mentioned above, I think the main reason people don't "like" the Beretta is the DA/SA trigger and the location/manipulation of the safety.

I've owned 2 92fs and shot expert twice in the USMC with the m9. Nothing "wrong" with the gun. Most people seem to prefer a SA 1911 style trigger/safety, or the striker fired pistols (Glock, XD, M&P)

I think it primarily comes down to personal preference.

Regards,
Nate
 
#29
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my main 2 shooters 92 fs police trade in made in 1986
and beretta elite 2
33biyi9.jpg

the 3rd gun is my m951 brigadier never been fired and i have the original box and sleeve
350to8w.jpg

the frame mounted safety i have heard alot of people say that can someone explain to me the desire for that </div></div>

Dang you and your Elite II. I've always liked that gun. I suspect that, despite my not so great performance with them, I will eventually end up with one if it crosses my path at the right price.
 
#30
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nw1911guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my main 2 shooters 92 fs police trade in made in 1986
and beretta elite 2
33biyi9.jpg

the 3rd gun is my m951 brigadier never been fired and i have the original box and sleeve
350to8w.jpg

the frame mounted safety i have heard alot of people say that can someone explain to me the desire for that </div></div>

Dang you and your Elite II. I've always liked that gun. I suspect that, despite my not so great performance with them, I will eventually end up with one if it crosses my path at the right price. </div></div>




the elite 2 pistols were expensive new as i recall they were in the low to mid 700 price range back in 2002 i saw glocks back then for 400 if you are lucky you can find a elite 2 for 750 in so so condition
 
#31
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the elite 2 pistols were expensive new as i recall they were in the low to mid 700 price range back in 2002 i saw glocks back then for 400 if you are lucky you can find a elite 2 for 750 in so so condition </div></div>

You're correct as I recall. I was working in a shop when they came out and almost bought one then. I have no worldly need for one but they're still sexy.
 
#32
Re: why no beretta love?

I have a 92FS and I like it. So much I may get a 90-Two model.

The only dumb thing is the non-removable front sight on 92/M9 so you have to send it away to get Trijicon night sites installed. They corrected that on the 90-Two version.

dati-tecnici.gif
 
#33
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have noticed that there is no love for beretta pistols on this site in fact a lot of bashing goes on and i was wondering why sure the military has had a fair share of problems with them due to the crap magazines but most guns i can think of have had rough patches so lets here some feedback </div></div>

Because they were just coming in when I was going out, back in '85. They were having a bunch of problems with the slide busting and coming flying back at the shooter. Killing I believe one and seriously injuring another four. <span style="color: #3333FF">{Edit: that was just during testing. A bunch more were broken during regular use. The problem was fixed, read further, in about 1989/1990}</span> The "stated issue with them"...I heard, was that a bunch of MP ammo accidentally got mixed in with the pistol ammo. I can tell you that was a white-wash. In fact they were built to inferior specs and were breaking. It wasn't until the U.S. Army went back to Berretta and said "BULLSHIT!" Make them right. It's bad enough we don't get to carry our .45's any longer but having pieces of shit that jam and break slide stops isn't worth it.

Not to mention we tried the 9mm (U.S. Revolver, cal, .38 1889, 1892,1894, 1895, 1896) before, back around the turn of the last century. It didn't work. The Moro's in the Philipines were drugged up and charging right through the pistol fire. The boys were writing home asking to have Schofields and Peacemakers sent so they had a real pistol to fight with. The Army evenutally got wise to this and went back to the .45 At first as a revolver then as the .45 ACP. Of course nowadays it's the fact that we couldn't shoot that comes to light....riiiiiight.

Lastly, it's the fact that we adopted it as the main pistol round because we needed to kiss everyone elses ass in NATO because they all had it. We felt differently they they did about what a pistol should, could, and can, do.
 
#34
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have noticed that there is no love for beretta pistols on this site in fact a lot of bashing goes on and i was wondering why sure the military has had a fair share of problems with them due to the crap magazines but most guns i can think of have had rough patches so lets here some feedback </div></div>

Because they were just coming in when I was going out, back in '85. They were having a bunch of problems with the slide busting and coming flying back at the shooter. Killing I believe one and seriously injuring another four. <span style="color: #3333FF">{Edit: that was just during testing. A bunch more were broken during regular use. The problem was fixed, read further, in about 1989/1990}</span> The "stated issue with them"...I heard, was that a bunch of MP ammo accidentally got mixed in with the pistol ammo. I can tell you that was a white-wash. In fact they were built to inferior specs and were breaking. It wasn't until the U.S. Army went back to Berretta and said "BULLSHIT!" Make them right. It's bad enough we don't get to carry our .45's any longer but having pieces of shit that jam and break slide stops isn't worth it.

Not to mention we tried the 9mm (U.S. Revolver, cal, .38 1889, 1892,1894, 1895, 1896) before, back around the turn of the last century. It didn't work. The Moro's in the Philipines were drugged up and charging right through the pistol fire. The boys were writing home asking to have Schofields and Peacemakers sent so they had a real pistol to fight with. The Army evenutally got wise to this and went back to the .45 At first as a revolver then as the .45 ACP. Of course nowadays it's the fact that we couldn't shoot that comes to light....riiiiiight.

Lastly, it's the fact that we adopted it as the main pistol round because we needed to kiss everyone elses ass in NATO because they all had it. We felt differently they they did about what a pistol should, could, and can, do. </div></div>

Wasn't there also something attributed to trace amounts of the rare earth element Tellurium involved to?
 
#35
Re: why no beretta love?

My main gripe with the beretta is the safety. We carry them hot, hammer down and safety off. The safety is too high to quickly engage without breakin your grip. When brushed up against something, be it getting out of your vehicle, CQB or wrestling with some on the safety becomes engaged. This will always happen right before you need to transition from your rifle to your sidearm, causing you to pull the trigger and immediatly slap rack pull for a malfunction. The guns shoot great. I like my glock because I know when I will it it is going to shoot everytime.
 
#36
Re: why no beretta love?

Got an M9 last month and I love the thing. I've only owned 1911s in the past so it took a few rounds to get used to the trigger. In SA there's a lot more slack than my 1911s but other than that I find mine to be very accurate. I only use it for shooting paper and plinking. It's fun making those bowling pins dance all over the place.
Like someone mentioned above limp-wristing can cause the slide to not close all the way on the next round though.
 
#37
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J.J. McQuade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My main gripe with the beretta is the safety. We carry them hot, hammer down and safety off. The safety is too high to quickly engage without breakin your grip. When brushed up against something, be it getting out of your vehicle, CQB or wrestling with some on the safety becomes engaged. This will always happen right before you need to transition from your rifle to your sidearm, causing you to pull the trigger and immediatly slap rack pull for a malfunction. The guns shoot great. I like my glock because I know when I will it it is going to shoot everytime. </div></div>


sounds like a G model would fix this issue for you
 
#38
Re: why no beretta love?

The army doesn't issue G models, It's either a beretta 92F, glock or a .45. I love .45s but with with exposed hammers in the field it can be troublesome. Even with proper cleaning it can't help but get fouled with dust blowing when coming off a helo, rolling in the mud or falling in an open sewage pit or crap filled canal. My glock will always fire. It is no nonsense and user friendly. It is almost virtually indestructable. There are more accurate pistols out there, no doubt. But for a proven combat reliable firearm I think it is hard to beat.
 
#39
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nw1911guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have noticed that there is no love for beretta pistols on this site in fact a lot of bashing goes on and i was wondering why sure the military has had a fair share of problems with them due to the crap magazines but most guns i can think of have had rough patches so lets here some feedback </div></div>

Because they were just coming in when I was going out, back in '85. They were having a bunch of problems with the slide busting and coming flying back at the shooter. Killing I believe one and seriously injuring another four. <span style="color: #3333FF">{Edit: that was just during testing. A bunch more were broken during regular use. The problem was fixed, read further, in about 1989/1990}</span> The "stated issue with them"...I heard, was that a bunch of MP ammo accidentally got mixed in with the pistol ammo. I can tell you that was a white-wash. In fact they were built to inferior specs and were breaking. It wasn't until the U.S. Army went back to Berretta and said "BULLSHIT!" Make them right. It's bad enough we don't get to carry our .45's any longer but having pieces of shit that jam and break slide stops isn't worth it.

Not to mention we tried the 9mm (U.S. Revolver, cal, .38 1889, 1892,1894, 1895, 1896) before, back around the turn of the last century. It didn't work. The Moro's in the Philipines were drugged up and charging right through the pistol fire. The boys were writing home asking to have Schofields and Peacemakers sent so they had a real pistol to fight with. The Army evenutally got wise to this and went back to the .45 At first as a revolver then as the .45 ACP. Of course nowadays it's the fact that we couldn't shoot that comes to light....riiiiiight.

Lastly, it's the fact that we adopted it as the main pistol round because we needed to kiss everyone elses ass in NATO because they all had it. We felt differently they they did about what a pistol should, could, and can, do. </div></div>

Wasn't there also something attributed to trace amounts of the rare earth element Tellurium involved <span style="font-weight: bold">to</span>?</div></div> <span style="color: #FF0000">too? or also?</span>

The thing got proposed, tested, OK'd and issued all within about 6 months. Right around the same time as the Army adopted the M16A2. Go figure on that one? I did and will continue to assume it was an ass-kissing deal. BTW, there are other Italian manufacturers who do a good job building firarms, Tanfoglio being one of them. Berretta is really nothing more than a holding company buying gun companies in Italy. They use it's firearms name to make international deals.

You can like the M9/Berretta 92, but I won't. It's a piece of crap in my book.
 
#42
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how could you not love a gun that has super sweet add on's

98dh6t.jpg


20fxdli.jpg
</div></div>

Alright, you got me there. That is pretty cool.

It's just in my mind, like a woman that burned you once, you don't go back. I never liked them years ago and haven't ever taking to liking them.

BUT! I haven't hardly ever shot them in the last 25 years.

p.s. maybe one day I'll like the M1 Carbine too?
 
#43
Re: why no beretta love?

I used to have a 92, never could get used to the trigger or the safety. That and the grip is a tad too fat for me from the factory. I have a Helwan Brigadier and a Taurus 92 now, the Hewan is a pain due to the cross bolt safety, I fixed the fat but issue with a set of slim custom walnut grips, they basically duplicate the factory grips, but they're barely thick enough to recess the screw heads.
 
#44
Re: why no beretta love?

what seems odd to me is a few people have said they would want a frame mounted safety but there was also a post saying they dont use the safety so is it really that big of a issue
 
#45
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have noticed that there is no love for beretta pistols on this site in fact a lot of bashing goes on and i was wondering why sure the military has had a fair share of problems with them due to the crap magazines but most guns i can think of have had rough patches so lets here some feedback </div></div>

Because they were just coming in when I was going out, back in '85. They were having a bunch of problems with the slide busting and coming flying back at the shooter. Killing I believe one and seriously injuring another four. <span style="color: #3333FF">{Edit: that was just during testing. A bunch more were broken during regular use. The problem was fixed, read further, in about 1989/1990}</span> The "stated issue with them"...I heard, was that a bunch of MP ammo accidentally got mixed in with the pistol ammo. I can tell you that was a white-wash. In fact they were built to inferior specs and were breaking. It wasn't until the U.S. Army went back to Berretta and said "BULLSHIT!" Make them right. It's bad enough we don't get to carry our .45's any longer but having pieces of shit that jam and break slide stops isn't worth it.

Not to mention we tried the 9mm (U.S. Revolver, cal, .38 1889, 1892,1894, 1895, 1896) before, back around the turn of the last century. It didn't work. The Moro's in the Philipines were drugged up and charging right through the pistol fire. The boys were writing home asking to have Schofields and Peacemakers sent so they had a real pistol to fight with. The Army evenutally got wise to this and went back to the .45 At first as a revolver then as the .45 ACP. Of course nowadays it's the fact that we couldn't shoot that comes to light....riiiiiight.

Lastly, it's the fact that we adopted it as the main pistol round because we needed to kiss everyone elses ass in NATO because they all had it. We felt differently they they did about what a pistol should, could, and can, do. </div></div>

The good old .45 vs 9mm debate which could go on forever, however this is about the Beretta not the caliber. When the military was looking for a new pistol it was to be chambered in 9mm nato not .45acp. More soldiers died of disease than from "high" Moro's in the Philippines. I have never heard of any of testers/soldiers/operators dieing of the slide coming back from shooting +p rounds in the M9 and a reference would be nice. I know perhaps 3 guys got injured but Beretta fixed that by putting a slide over travel system and strengthing or fixing the alloy of the frame.

A good read would be: Popular Mechanics
M9 True Story

 
#46
Re: why no beretta love?

I like the older 84 or 85 in .380 that had the frame mounted safety that didn't decock the pistol when engaged. The newer ones all decock the hammer when engaged. If Beretta actually made a version of the M9, I'd cheerfully buy one. At least then I could use the trigger. Lol
 
#47
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: frankythefly</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have noticed that there is no love for beretta pistols on this site in fact a lot of bashing goes on and i was wondering why sure the military has had a fair share of problems with them due to the crap magazines but most guns i can think of have had rough patches so lets here some feedback </div></div>

Because they were just coming in when I was going out, back in '85. They were having a bunch of problems with the slide busting and coming flying back at the shooter. Killing I believe one and seriously injuring another four. <span style="color: #3333FF">{Edit: that was just during testing. A bunch more were broken during regular use. The problem was fixed, read further, in about 1989/1990}</span> The "stated issue with them"...I heard, was that a bunch of MP ammo accidentally got mixed in with the pistol ammo. I can tell you that was a white-wash. In fact they were built to inferior specs and were breaking. It wasn't until the U.S. Army went back to Berretta and said "BULLSHIT!" Make them right. It's bad enough we don't get to carry our .45's any longer but having pieces of shit that jam and break slide stops isn't worth it.

Not to mention we tried the 9mm (U.S. Revolver, cal, .38 1889, 1892,1894, 1895, 1896) before, back around the turn of the last century. It didn't work. The Moro's in the Philipines were drugged up and charging right through the pistol fire. The boys were writing home asking to have Schofields and Peacemakers sent so they had a real pistol to fight with. The Army evenutally got wise to this and went back to the .45 At first as a revolver then as the .45 ACP. Of course nowadays it's the fact that we couldn't shoot that comes to light....riiiiiight.

Lastly, it's the fact that we adopted it as the main pistol round because we needed to kiss everyone elses ass in NATO because they all had it. We felt differently they they did about what a pistol should, could, and can, do. </div></div>

The good old .45 vs 9mm debate which could go on forever, however this is about the Beretta not the caliber. When the military was looking for a new pistol it was to be chambered in 9mm nato not .45acp. More soldiers died of disease than from "high" Moro's in the Philippines. I have never heard of any of testers/soldiers/operators dieing of the slide coming back from shooting +p rounds in the M9 and a reference would be nice. I know perhaps 3 guys got injured but Beretta fixed that by putting a slide over travel system and strengthing or fixing the alloy of the frame.

A good read would be: Popular Mechanics
M9 True Story

</div></div>

What do you want me to quote, Wikipedia?
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
Some other internet source that can get shot down too? Because I'm not standing at your doorstep with a court proclamation that Beretta is a POS company?

Plain and simple it was a known fact in 1984/5 that the M92 shed some slides and killed one and injured others. The point of that statement was it was 1984...not yesterday, not last year. The Army had a comeuppance (1989) with Beretta <span style="text-decoration: underline">and the problem got fixed</span>. You need references for that too??

I'm just saying I didn't like the round and I damn sure didn't like the manufacturer. They are a name that sells guns. Not the best guns, but guns. The entire reason we went to the 9mm was to appease NATO when we went forward with the M16A2 and the heavier rounds M855.

Sorry if you don't like it but I was in when all that "politickin" was going on. You might not have even been cognizant of it at the time. Most soldiers who were in at the time didn't even get the chance to say anything before the order came down, "You will now carry a 9mm."

I'm absolutely sure it was a tradeoff. You want a reference for that too? Maybe you need a reference as to why McNamara bought F-4's for all services? His 'statistics' showed it would be the best plane.

<span style="font-style: italic">Note to self: find big defense contractor executives and have them go on the record as to why they build what they build. Maybe get a golf course membership or two just for that...</span>

Bottom line: I haven't liked the Beretta 92/M9 since it's adoption by the U.S. I don't plan on liking it. Or, the 9mm. I like other models that perform the way I expect them to. With calibers that do what I expect them too. You can call me out all you want. I ain't gonna like the M9. Even if my last post says that I said what I saw on on an M9 was pretty cool.

So There! Nyeah, nyeah nyeah
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
 
#48
Re: why no beretta love?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: frankythefly</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have noticed that there is no love for beretta pistols on this site in fact a lot of bashing goes on and i was wondering why sure the military has had a fair share of problems with them due to the crap magazines but most guns i can think of have had rough patches so lets here some feedback </div></div>

Because they were just coming in when I was going out, back in '85. They were having a bunch of problems with the slide busting and coming flying back at the shooter. Killing I believe one and seriously injuring another four. <span style="color: #3333FF">{Edit: that was just during testing. A bunch more were broken during regular use. The problem was fixed, read further, in about 1989/1990}</span> The "stated issue with them"...I heard, was that a bunch of MP ammo accidentally got mixed in with the pistol ammo. I can tell you that was a white-wash. In fact they were built to inferior specs and were breaking. It wasn't until the U.S. Army went back to Berretta and said "BULLSHIT!" Make them right. It's bad enough we don't get to carry our .45's any longer but having pieces of shit that jam and break slide stops isn't worth it.

Not to mention we tried the 9mm (U.S. Revolver, cal, .38 1889, 1892,1894, 1895, 1896) before, back around the turn of the last century. It didn't work. The Moro's in the Philipines were drugged up and charging right through the pistol fire. The boys were writing home asking to have Schofields and Peacemakers sent so they had a real pistol to fight with. The Army evenutally got wise to this and went back to the .45 At first as a revolver then as the .45 ACP. Of course nowadays it's the fact that we couldn't shoot that comes to light....riiiiiight.

Lastly, it's the fact that we adopted it as the main pistol round because we needed to kiss everyone elses ass in NATO because they all had it. We felt differently they they did about what a pistol should, could, and can, do. </div></div>

The good old .45 vs 9mm debate which could go on forever, however this is about the Beretta not the caliber. When the military was looking for a new pistol it was to be chambered in 9mm nato not .45acp. More soldiers died of disease than from "high" Moro's in the Philippines. I have never heard of any of testers/soldiers/operators dieing of the slide coming back from shooting +p rounds in the M9 and a reference would be nice. I know perhaps 3 guys got injured but Beretta fixed that by putting a slide over travel system and strengthing or fixing the alloy of the frame.

A good read would be: Popular Mechanics
M9 True Story

</div></div>

What do you want me to quote, Wikipedia?
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
Some other internet source that can get shot down too? Because I'm not standing at your doorstep with a court proclamation that Beretta is a POS company?

Plain and simple it was a known fact in 1984/5 that the M92 shed some slides and killed one and injured others. The point of that statement was it was 1984...not yesterday, not last year. The Army had a comeuppance (1989) with Beretta <span style="text-decoration: underline">and the problem got fixed</span>. You need references for that too??

I'm just saying I didn't like the round and I damn sure didn't like the manufacturer. They are a name that sells guns. Not the best guns, but guns. The entire reason we went to the 9mm was to appease NATO when we went forward with the M16A2 and the heavier rounds M855.

Sorry if you don't like it but I was in when all that "politickin" was going on. You might not have even been cognizant of it at the time. Most soldiers who were in at the time didn't even get the chance to say anything before the order came down, "You will now carry a 9mm."

I'm absolutely sure it was a tradeoff. You want a reference for that too? Maybe you need a reference as to why McNamara bought F-4's for all services? His 'statistics' showed it would be the best plane.

<span style="font-style: italic">Note to self: find big defense contractor executives and have them go on the record as to why they build what they build. Maybe get a golf course membership or two just for that...</span>

Bottom line: I haven't liked the Beretta 92/M9 since it's adoption by the U.S. I don't plan on liking it. Or, the 9mm. I like other models that perform the way I expect them to. With calibers that do what I expect them too. You can call me out all you want. I ain't gonna like the M9. Even if my last post says that I said what I saw on on an M9 was pretty cool.

So There! Nyeah, nyeah nyeah
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
</div></div>

The M16 was another fine example of 'politickin as well.
 
#49
Re: why no beretta love?

i've had a few berettas, an italian 84, still have a 950 jetfire, and a 96. i've been looking for a used 92 but can never find the right price. they seem to hold at 350-450$ unless i'm looking in the wrong place
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
You have to love Beretta/Sako customer service.......or lack of
Replies
10
Views
587
carbonbased
carbonbased
ThirtyOne
SOLD FOR SALE: **REDUCED** Langdon Tactical Beretta 92FS Italian Model
Replies
5
Views
543
cjmartin315
C
Nubba0681
SOLD Beretta 694 B Fast
Replies
5
Views
495
Macirsh
M
I
Red dot at 100 yrds
Replies
6
Views
451
ironman56
I
M
My own experiences with Garmin Xero C1 vs Labradar vs Magnetospeed
Replies
0
Views
819
metroplex
M
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts