Beretta Barrels Unsupported ala Glock?
- Thread starter wolf 1415
- Start date
- Status
CastleBravo
New member
Wild Romanian,
Just because you found some scary posts on an anonymous bulletin board does not mean you have "proof" of anything.
Just because you found some scary posts on an anonymous bulletin board does not mean you have "proof" of anything.
Chad Young
New member
There is an alternate theory on KBs, Glocks, and reloads. The theory is as follows: Glocks typically have a bit more unsupported chamber area than other guns. The portion of the case in this unsupported section bulges slightly when the round is fired. After several reloading cycles, or during an overcharge, if the previously created 'bulge' is in the unsupported area again, the brass may be too weak to support the pressures and you may have a KB.
As a devoted armchair commando
I too have read the horror stories about KBs and other such stuff here. The common thread seems to be reloading - cases reloaded too many times, lead rounds in polygonal rifling, double charges, bullet setback. Are Glocks less tolerant of reloader error? IMNHO, probably. Are Glocks, by design, more prone to KB? Once again, in my OPINION, probably not. Would I trust my life to a .40 Glock? Yes, indeed. I do it on a regular basis - with quality factory loaded ammo.
Now how does this affect my behavior? I ONLY shoot MY reloads in MY Glock and then only for practice. My reloads are jacketed, not lead. My reloads are usually very light. If the brass shows any sign of bulging or excess wear, it goes in the trash can. I understand if my reload blows up my gun, it is almost certainly my fault, not the gun's fault.
Just my $0.02. According to my significant other, that is $0.03 too much.
As a devoted armchair commando
I too have read the horror stories about KBs and other such stuff here. The common thread seems to be reloading - cases reloaded too many times, lead rounds in polygonal rifling, double charges, bullet setback. Are Glocks less tolerant of reloader error? IMNHO, probably. Are Glocks, by design, more prone to KB? Once again, in my OPINION, probably not. Would I trust my life to a .40 Glock? Yes, indeed. I do it on a regular basis - with quality factory loaded ammo.Now how does this affect my behavior? I ONLY shoot MY reloads in MY Glock and then only for practice. My reloads are jacketed, not lead. My reloads are usually very light. If the brass shows any sign of bulging or excess wear, it goes in the trash can. I understand if my reload blows up my gun, it is almost certainly my fault, not the gun's fault.
Just my $0.02. According to my significant other, that is $0.03 too much.
Wild Romanian
Moderator
I own and shoot a large variety of military semi-auto rifles. One factor that shows up over and over again is that even among the same lot of primers some are more sensitive than others.
It does not take much to set off a primer. I personally know of one fellow reloader that only bumped a primer with his finger on the loading bench and that was enough to set it off. I have peronally known one person who droped a Beretta handgun model 92 with the safety on and of course with the passive firing pin safety working perfectly. You would think that with two safety systems keeping the firing pin away from the primer that it would be impossible for the primer to detonate and set the gun off. Wrong. The gun fired.
The point I am trying to make is that the small dent that most military semi-auto's make in the primer as they slam into battery is more than enough to set off some primers. It happens in my rifles alll the time with the SKS, AK variety being the worst offenders and the M!A and M1's being the least offenders. MOst of the time it only results in a double firing of two rounds in quick succession but if the primer would fire before the bolt is entirely locked that is when a lot of them blow up.
Having a case that is to long or a bullet seated to far out or a case neck to thick or a high primer along with the firing pin putting a little dent in the primer all can contribute to a nasty blow up.
Even if the M1A is in perfect time the point I am trying to make is that it guarentees you nothing. The gun can definetly double on you and can also blow up depending on excactly when the primer detonates and that is dependent on how sensitive the primer is to detonating. W.R.
Wild Romanian
Moderator
I think that many people hate the .40 for a number of reasons.
1. It recoils more and because of this they do not shoot it as well as some of the other calibers ,especially the 9mm with its easy recoil even with high velocity loadings.
2. It wears out pistols faster resulting in breakage of parts and also there is a corresponding deteriation in the slide to frame fit which in turn affects the intrinsic accuray of the pistol. All this of course infuriates the owner of this caliber especially if he has not owned it very long but has put a lot of rounds through it in a short time.
3. It does not have the high capacity of the 9mm
4. People who wish to shoot the .40 more accurately eventually end up loading it way, way down and often give up experimenting with it before they can find a load that shoots as well as say their favorite .45 acp mid range load. This really infuriates them to the point where they end up selling the weapon or just putting it away in the safe. And of course once you start loading down the .40 you may as well of just went out and bought the .45 acp to begin with, especially since it is the bigger of the two calibers.
With the large amount of modern factory loadings for the 9mm I see no reason to put up with the disadvantages of the .40. If I need a bigger caliber I would opt for the .45 acp. It has been around for almost 100 years and their is a load for every possible need or situation wether it be defense or target shooting. The target shooting loads especially have been proven over many, many years of experimentation by thousands and thousands of people.
I think that if had not been for the weird rules in USPSA shooting that gave the .40 an edge over the 9mm coupled with the Gunzine propaganda the caliber would have fallen by the wayside only a few years later than the 10mm did.
Just as the .41 Remington Revolver failed in the police maket I think that eventually the .40 will also fall out of favor and soon be forgotten as time marches on. The 9mm still has to much going for it. It is a military caliber , it has easy recoil, high velocity and high capacity and high service life. Also because it is a military cartridge and a widely popular police cartridge most of the new developements will be centered around this cartridge not the .40. No matter how you look at it the .40 comes out on the short end of the stick because it does not share in all of these advantages. W.R.
Wild Romanian
Moderator
I just finished reading this thread so I will pass it on to all of you. I guess this proves my point in the above thread I just posted. W.R.
BHP or is it me???
Well I had my first range session with a BHP MkIII in .40. Recoil was pretty snappy. Much more so than my Glock 29. On top of that, I couldn't hit crap! I'd put one or two in the black (NRA 50ft. target at an NRA 50 ft range) two or three left and a little low and one or two not even on paper!
Now I'm not claiming to be a deadeye, but I took my new Sig 228 to the range for the first time last week and put 8 of 10 in the black at the same distance. No problems with my G29 or 1076 either.
I'm torn. I hope it's just me (kinda), then again I hope it's the BHP (kinda)
Ideas?
__________________
Cheers!
Birch
BHP or is it me???
Well I had my first range session with a BHP MkIII in .40. Recoil was pretty snappy. Much more so than my Glock 29. On top of that, I couldn't hit crap! I'd put one or two in the black (NRA 50ft. target at an NRA 50 ft range) two or three left and a little low and one or two not even on paper!
Now I'm not claiming to be a deadeye, but I took my new Sig 228 to the range for the first time last week and put 8 of 10 in the black at the same distance. No problems with my G29 or 1076 either.
I'm torn. I hope it's just me (kinda), then again I hope it's the BHP (kinda)
Ideas?
__________________
Cheers!
Birch
WR-
Birch's post proves nothing except that he did not have a good first range session with his .40 Hi-Power. He said that recoil was "snappy". I shoot my Beretta 96D Brigadier with full power 180 grain factory loads or my handloaded equivelent. While I will say that it recoils more than the same gun in 9mm, I find it easily controlable in the rapid fire of IDPA matches.
Perhaps his sights are off. Perhaps he isn't used to the gun yet. They're are a myriad of reasons why the session was not as good as he had hoped. But, right away you fault the cartridge. It sounds to me like he was target shooting. Slow fire. Recoil is not quite as big a factor in slow target type shooting. Perhaps he has a .44 Magnum with which he can place all shots in a quarter at 25 yards.
With regards to your last two posts you say that the recoil of the .40 makes it too difficult to shoot accurately. The .45 has more recoil than the .40 in identical guns, and by your logic should be even harder to shoot well.
As far as people wanting to shoot the .40 more accurately loading it down, my experience has been that people load it down to fire faster follow up shots.
I also noticed in your last post you are no longer citing the pressure issue. As I said before, the .45 will wear an identical gun out faster, causing the wear and breakage of parts and parts wear that reduces intrinsic accuracy. The .40 will wear a gun out faster than a 9mm though.
.40 doesn't have the high capacity of the 9mm? True-but the .45 doesn't have the high capacity of the .40. That does not render the .45 inferior to the .40 or the 9mm.
As far as gunzine propaganda that promotes the .40-are these the same gunzines that you stated contained stories of the high pressure dangers of the .40 and 10mm?
The most refreshing thing about your last two posts were that they were your own, honest evaluation and OPINION of the .40 cartridge, minus most of the misleading and untrue "facts" that you have cited earlier. And, as they say, variety is the spice of life. The world would be a pretty boring place if we all liked the same thing and agreed all the time!
Until next time,
Tom C
Birch's post proves nothing except that he did not have a good first range session with his .40 Hi-Power. He said that recoil was "snappy". I shoot my Beretta 96D Brigadier with full power 180 grain factory loads or my handloaded equivelent. While I will say that it recoils more than the same gun in 9mm, I find it easily controlable in the rapid fire of IDPA matches.
Perhaps his sights are off. Perhaps he isn't used to the gun yet. They're are a myriad of reasons why the session was not as good as he had hoped. But, right away you fault the cartridge. It sounds to me like he was target shooting. Slow fire. Recoil is not quite as big a factor in slow target type shooting. Perhaps he has a .44 Magnum with which he can place all shots in a quarter at 25 yards.
With regards to your last two posts you say that the recoil of the .40 makes it too difficult to shoot accurately. The .45 has more recoil than the .40 in identical guns, and by your logic should be even harder to shoot well.
As far as people wanting to shoot the .40 more accurately loading it down, my experience has been that people load it down to fire faster follow up shots.
I also noticed in your last post you are no longer citing the pressure issue. As I said before, the .45 will wear an identical gun out faster, causing the wear and breakage of parts and parts wear that reduces intrinsic accuracy. The .40 will wear a gun out faster than a 9mm though.
.40 doesn't have the high capacity of the 9mm? True-but the .45 doesn't have the high capacity of the .40. That does not render the .45 inferior to the .40 or the 9mm.
As far as gunzine propaganda that promotes the .40-are these the same gunzines that you stated contained stories of the high pressure dangers of the .40 and 10mm?
The most refreshing thing about your last two posts were that they were your own, honest evaluation and OPINION of the .40 cartridge, minus most of the misleading and untrue "facts" that you have cited earlier. And, as they say, variety is the spice of life. The world would be a pretty boring place if we all liked the same thing and agreed all the time!
Until next time,
Tom C
Will Beararms
New member
Back to the topic at hand................
Beretta's KBing? Nonsense. Worry more about the locking block failing after 30K - 70K rounds. Now go out and get a life.
Beretta's KBing? Nonsense. Worry more about the locking block failing after 30K - 70K rounds. Now go out and get a life.
I've fired several Browning Hi Powers in .40 S&W and would not classify them as having snappy recoil. In fact (though I didn't shoot a 9mm alongside for comparison), they shot very nicely. For what its worth, they were both pretty accurate too. One did not shoot to point of aim, but it grouped very well for me and for a friend who owned the both of them.
I'm looking fo a Hi Power, and although I'm not the least bit worried about the .40 wearing a gun or the Kbs, I'll get one in 9mm because the Hi Power just "belongs" in 9mm just as the 1911 "belongs" in .45. Now don't read this to mean I don't think the Hi Power should be chambered in .40, I just like the 9mms better.
Shake
I'm looking fo a Hi Power, and although I'm not the least bit worried about the .40 wearing a gun or the Kbs, I'll get one in 9mm because the Hi Power just "belongs" in 9mm just as the 1911 "belongs" in .45. Now don't read this to mean I don't think the Hi Power should be chambered in .40, I just like the 9mms better.
Shake
Wild Romanian
Moderator
I do not know if the .45 is any harder to shoot than the .40 but That is why people who shoot target load mid range wadd cutter low velocity loads when competing with the .45 in bullseye matches. The mild recoil of these loads enables the shooter to shoot very accurately. When the recoil goes up the accuracy goes down. This not a secret , it has been known for years.
My point is if you are going to get belted with recoil in full service loads why not shoot the superior pistol. The .45 is a bigger caliber and as an added bonus has a much longer service life than the .40.
History has proved you wrong on this one. The .45 is noted for very long service life with full power military loads. Do you really think the U.S. military would have ever adopted the .45 without first testing it for longevity with service loads. They did indeed test it. It passed with flying colors in the early part of this century and it was retested int the 1970's and then later in the 1980's by the U.S. military when they were setting the standards by which the new replacement pistol whould have to measure up to if it was to replace the venerable 1911.
Contrast this to all of the madder than hell , red faced people I have seen on our firing range with broken down .40 S&W's in various manufactures models. Many who had only put a few thousand rounds through them. This is not hearsay passed down from father to son to cousin to neighbor. This is a direct obeservation from one person (Me) while observing the people on our range firing this caliber.
Perhaps one of the comments made by one of the other people who posted on this subject makes very good sense. (9x19)
Also if we reread another quote and anaylize it we may see that although the 9mm is fired out of the same type weapons with unsupported chambers it does not blow up with frequency that the .40 does.
Wild Romanian... I see your logic with wearing out guns. I disagree with a gun is at fault because of bulged cases or overloaded rounds. That can happen to any cal. in any gun.
I believe the 1911's do wear out, that is why all the spare parts are available. That was one agrument for 1911's is you can fix almost any 1911 in the field with all the available parts. Not my quote but I would agree with it.
I believe that the Beretta is designed so when the parts wear out (the locking block) can be replaced with very little expense.
If you shoot 1000's of rounds through any gun some parts should be checked and changed. (including springs) If this is done I bet that most of the pistol problems would never occur. Some people don't treat there stuff right. plunker
I believe the 1911's do wear out, that is why all the spare parts are available. That was one agrument for 1911's is you can fix almost any 1911 in the field with all the available parts. Not my quote but I would agree with it.
I believe that the Beretta is designed so when the parts wear out (the locking block) can be replaced with very little expense.
If you shoot 1000's of rounds through any gun some parts should be checked and changed. (including springs) If this is done I bet that most of the pistol problems would never occur. Some people don't treat there stuff right. plunker
WR-
You are back to stating opinion as fact.
You say that you don't know if a .45 recoils harder than the .40. That's my point-you don't know. You admit this but pass judgement on the recoil of the .40 and make a blanket statement that the .45 is superior.
Recoil goes up accuracy goes down-nonsense! This is entirely dependant upon the shooter. While recoil may have the effect of inducing fatigue sooner, recoil does, in and of itself, not affect accuracy. I will concede, however, that ones ability to shoot a .454 Casull accurately will probably diminish more quickly than if he was shooting a .22!
Longevity of pistols-history hasn't proved me wrong on anything. I stated that .45 pistols would last a long, long, time. I do not dispute this in the least. That does not mean that the .40 guns won't last longer, just that the .45 lasts a long time. The .40 hasn't been around as long as the .45 this is true; that doesn't mean that time won't prove the .40 to be just as enduring. I have occasion to be present on the range when pistols in .40 exclusively are fired. Lots of pistols. No breakages (other than occasional springs) at all. All of my pistols in .40 (Berettas) have thousands of rounds through them, factory and reload. No problems at all.
Regarding pressure and recoil-I'm sorry that your experience shows pressure and recoil are somehow the same, however, the scientific reality proves they are not. As I have tried to remind you, a .45 operates at a lower pressure than the .40 but recoils more. Of course stuffing more powder in a case raises pressure and recoil-but only to a certain point. Eventually a point will be reached where pressure will continue to climb but recoil will not increase because the highest velocity of the projectile has been reached. More powder stuffed in a case, beyond a certain point, will only raise pressure, not velocity.
As far as the pressure issue-I have quoted and cited the pages in loading manuals that show the peak, maximum pressure of the 9 and .40 to be the same. You seem to be disputing these manuals because your opinion makes more sense to you.
You reference many .40 pistols you have seen at the range broken down after only a few thousand rounds. What make? What model? Full size or mini-guns? Care? Maintenance? I've seen a good deal more malfunctioning .45s on the line, mostly because of tinkering and home gunsmithing. A .40 in a small gun will wear it out faster than an identical gun in 9mm-but not as fast as the .45 would.
Finally, you state that the .40 suffers from the same problems the 10mm had. The fact of the matter is the 10mm never had those problems. Thus, the .40 shares the same <lack> of problems.
WillBeararms had a good point-back to the original topic-no documented cases of a Beretta Kb with factory ammo in .40. I have been to the Beretta factory twice and seen some examples of guns damaged by poor (or non-existent) reloading safety precautions. As an aside, however, even when guns were damaged by these truly hideous handloads, if you look at the breechface of a Beretta 9x series you will see that at the top of the breechface there is a small portion of slide that overhangs it. While this portion has been damaged it seems to deflect debris away from the shooter and help prevent injury.
Berettas are my favorite-trust my life to them every day. Get one, in .40 if you wish, and enjoy it! If you acctually shoot it enough to wear it out, retire it and buy another.
Tom C
You are back to stating opinion as fact.
You say that you don't know if a .45 recoils harder than the .40. That's my point-you don't know. You admit this but pass judgement on the recoil of the .40 and make a blanket statement that the .45 is superior.
Recoil goes up accuracy goes down-nonsense! This is entirely dependant upon the shooter. While recoil may have the effect of inducing fatigue sooner, recoil does, in and of itself, not affect accuracy. I will concede, however, that ones ability to shoot a .454 Casull accurately will probably diminish more quickly than if he was shooting a .22!
Longevity of pistols-history hasn't proved me wrong on anything. I stated that .45 pistols would last a long, long, time. I do not dispute this in the least. That does not mean that the .40 guns won't last longer, just that the .45 lasts a long time. The .40 hasn't been around as long as the .45 this is true; that doesn't mean that time won't prove the .40 to be just as enduring. I have occasion to be present on the range when pistols in .40 exclusively are fired. Lots of pistols. No breakages (other than occasional springs) at all. All of my pistols in .40 (Berettas) have thousands of rounds through them, factory and reload. No problems at all.
Regarding pressure and recoil-I'm sorry that your experience shows pressure and recoil are somehow the same, however, the scientific reality proves they are not. As I have tried to remind you, a .45 operates at a lower pressure than the .40 but recoils more. Of course stuffing more powder in a case raises pressure and recoil-but only to a certain point. Eventually a point will be reached where pressure will continue to climb but recoil will not increase because the highest velocity of the projectile has been reached. More powder stuffed in a case, beyond a certain point, will only raise pressure, not velocity.
As far as the pressure issue-I have quoted and cited the pages in loading manuals that show the peak, maximum pressure of the 9 and .40 to be the same. You seem to be disputing these manuals because your opinion makes more sense to you.
You reference many .40 pistols you have seen at the range broken down after only a few thousand rounds. What make? What model? Full size or mini-guns? Care? Maintenance? I've seen a good deal more malfunctioning .45s on the line, mostly because of tinkering and home gunsmithing. A .40 in a small gun will wear it out faster than an identical gun in 9mm-but not as fast as the .45 would.
Finally, you state that the .40 suffers from the same problems the 10mm had. The fact of the matter is the 10mm never had those problems. Thus, the .40 shares the same <lack> of problems.
WillBeararms had a good point-back to the original topic-no documented cases of a Beretta Kb with factory ammo in .40. I have been to the Beretta factory twice and seen some examples of guns damaged by poor (or non-existent) reloading safety precautions. As an aside, however, even when guns were damaged by these truly hideous handloads, if you look at the breechface of a Beretta 9x series you will see that at the top of the breechface there is a small portion of slide that overhangs it. While this portion has been damaged it seems to deflect debris away from the shooter and help prevent injury.
Berettas are my favorite-trust my life to them every day. Get one, in .40 if you wish, and enjoy it! If you acctually shoot it enough to wear it out, retire it and buy another.
Tom C
I see that Wild Romanian is at it again. I really am not chasing you around, and bear you no malice (nor do I bear malice to any fellow shooter).
I really do take isuue with a lot of your opinions.
This one really cracks me up WR. Why? Because you said this in another thread:
Let me ask you this WR, do you really think the U.S. military would have ever adopted the Beretta without first testing it for longevity with service loads? If they were busy setting standards that the new replacement pistol was to measure up to, aren't you also saying (in not so many words) that the Beretta did surpass the standard set by "the venerable" 1911?
Of course it did not, and you will tell us why because it is not on your list of "approved" handguns.
Here is how it all happened, right? Beretta: Hello army, we have a new pistol that holds lots of rounds and is accurate and lasts a long time. Army: Does it really? Beretta: Yes, it does. It is also very durable like "the venerable" 1911. Army: You don't say. Beretta: would you like to buy about five million? Army: Sure, why not?
As far as the issue of .40s blowing up in huge numbers, I'd like to know how many YOU have seen blow up. Seems you must be the most unlucky guy around. If they blow up so frequently, I'm sure your range is taking action to ban the use of this very dangerous cartridge? I'll tell you, I've been on the range quite a bit over the past few years and I've yet to see a .40 blow up or break down. That includes watching the local sheriff's dept. shoot their H&K .40s. They shoot a lot and I still haven't seen a mushroom cloud over any of their .40s yet.
How many times can you deny what is printed in reloading manuals from every manufacturer in the country stating that the pressure for the .40 is the same as that of the 9mm? You know better than they do I guess?
Again I say, face the truth, you are extremely opinionated on brand of firearms and which cartridges you approve of. If someone else disagrees with that they are idiots and have not "seen the light" yet.
I ask again, why post on this BB when you know we are all a bunch of bumbling idiots who can't understand the "truth" as you know it?
Shake
I really do take isuue with a lot of your opinions.
This one really cracks me up WR. Why? Because you said this in another thread:
Seems there are some contradictory statements coming from you. On one hand you praise the military for their wisdom in choosing "the venerable" 1911 and then on the other hand tell everybody else what a piece of crap the Beretta is.
Let me ask you this WR, do you really think the U.S. military would have ever adopted the Beretta without first testing it for longevity with service loads? If they were busy setting standards that the new replacement pistol was to measure up to, aren't you also saying (in not so many words) that the Beretta did surpass the standard set by "the venerable" 1911?
Of course it did not, and you will tell us why because it is not on your list of "approved" handguns.
Here is how it all happened, right? Beretta: Hello army, we have a new pistol that holds lots of rounds and is accurate and lasts a long time. Army: Does it really? Beretta: Yes, it does. It is also very durable like "the venerable" 1911. Army: You don't say. Beretta: would you like to buy about five million? Army: Sure, why not?
As far as the issue of .40s blowing up in huge numbers, I'd like to know how many YOU have seen blow up. Seems you must be the most unlucky guy around. If they blow up so frequently, I'm sure your range is taking action to ban the use of this very dangerous cartridge? I'll tell you, I've been on the range quite a bit over the past few years and I've yet to see a .40 blow up or break down. That includes watching the local sheriff's dept. shoot their H&K .40s. They shoot a lot and I still haven't seen a mushroom cloud over any of their .40s yet.
How many times can you deny what is printed in reloading manuals from every manufacturer in the country stating that the pressure for the .40 is the same as that of the 9mm? You know better than they do I guess?
Again I say, face the truth, you are extremely opinionated on brand of firearms and which cartridges you approve of. If someone else disagrees with that they are idiots and have not "seen the light" yet.
I ask again, why post on this BB when you know we are all a bunch of bumbling idiots who can't understand the "truth" as you know it?
Shake
support_six
New member
In the early days of my military carreer I was a Maintenance Platoon Leader, one of my squads were 45K small arms repairmen. They spent a lot of time keeping the fleet of old M1911's running. The fleet was old, most made during or just after WWII and we went through barrels, bushings, springs, slides, etc. like crazy. When a frame became unserviceable, it took a "long" time to get a replacement because they were not being made anymore. We had to wait till a unit got deactivated to grab their weapons.
I am not down on the M1911, I've owned and fired them and really like them. But the weapon only lasted as long as it did as the service sidearm due to a lot of maintenance. The frame was not built after sometime in the 1950's if I remember right, but we had bench stock of slides, barrels, springs, guide rods, pins, triggers, etc. -- everything except the frame! We nursed these babies for a lot of years.
Bruce Woodbury
I am not down on the M1911, I've owned and fired them and really like them. But the weapon only lasted as long as it did as the service sidearm due to a lot of maintenance. The frame was not built after sometime in the 1950's if I remember right, but we had bench stock of slides, barrels, springs, guide rods, pins, triggers, etc. -- everything except the frame! We nursed these babies for a lot of years.
Bruce Woodbury
Wild Romanian
Moderator
Beretta-- Cracked slide
Ruger- broken extractor- extractor did stay in this gun and did not fly out and kill anyone.
Browning High Power- broken ejector.
Should I go on or do you want more?
It is documented fact that the factories are now loading the 10mm down because the pistols it was chambered in just could not take its pounding. This info is nothing new it has been in all the gun magazines and has also been posted elsewhere in this forum. As I have stated before the .40 also suffers from this problem but it is not as quick or as dramatic.
I have fired both weapons. Both recoil and the only thing that I have noticed as far as difference is that the .40's recoil is quicker and sharper not heavier. That is what I meant when I said I do not know which kicks more. I do not have a machine to scientifically give you any recoil measurments. W.R.
Last edited:
Wild Romanian
Moderator
Your right on the money with this one.
The U.S. armed services had to insert steel frame rails in its target guns that they used at Camp Perry to prolong the accuracy life of thier target Beretta's. The cheap aluminum frames just deteriorated to quickly as far as holding accuracy for target shooting purposes.
This does not mean that the pistol would not function or give close range blasting accuracy that would probably be good enough for combat. Let's face it the war time .45's were not match guns either but because they had steel frames not cheap aluminum frames they held what accuracy they originally had for a much longer period of time. When accurized they hold their accuracy much longer than aluminum frames do.
AS far as a field weapon goes of course the Beretta is inferior. Anyone who is mechanically inclined at all can see that the 1911 is easily stripped to the bare frame in the field while the Bertta is not. Anyone familiar with the hardness and durability of a steel frame verses an aluminum frame will not even try to compare the durabiltiy of the two metals.
Beretta's blowing up with disintegrating frames has been well documented in both the military and in law suits in the civilian world. Wether this is do to a weakness in design or improper ammo or a combination of the two (high probability) is open to argument.
Do you really think that Beretta would have invested all this time and money in the development of their new heavier frame if there had been not danger or serious problems to begin with? Factories do not spend money or change weapons when they do not have to. They do it when they are forced to by lawsuits and loss of contracts to the military. W.R.
Wild Romanian
Moderator
I never said or will ever say that the Beretta surpassed the 1911 in anything. W.R.
Wild Romanian
Moderator
Some of you people really amaze me on how you try and defend vastly inferior weapons. Just because I happen to like a particluar weapon say like the Sig P210 I would not try to claim it should be adopted by the police or world military. I do not let my personal likes cloud my judgment as to the merits of any particular weapon.
Lets face it todays handguns are being designed to be produced as quickly and as cheaply as possible for sale to the worlds militaries and police markets. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the vast difference between some of the truly great classics like the 1911 or Browning High Power and the new wave pistols that are being produced today.
If you are statisfied with weapons that cost less and suffer from vastly inferior designs and materiels that is your privilege but please do not insult the intelligence of people who have used all of the classics for years and have also owned and evaluated the new wave pistols. How anyone can even begin to equate the two classes of weapons never ceases to amaze and confound me. W.R.
Lets face it todays handguns are being designed to be produced as quickly and as cheaply as possible for sale to the worlds militaries and police markets. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the vast difference between some of the truly great classics like the 1911 or Browning High Power and the new wave pistols that are being produced today.
If you are statisfied with weapons that cost less and suffer from vastly inferior designs and materiels that is your privilege but please do not insult the intelligence of people who have used all of the classics for years and have also owned and evaluated the new wave pistols. How anyone can even begin to equate the two classes of weapons never ceases to amaze and confound me. W.R.
So I guess the answer to my question is... (sheepishly, in a quiet voice) no?
Berettas in .40 do not have a Kaboom problem!?!?!?!?!
BTW, while you guys were arguing, I loaded up 150 rds of .40 using power pistol and Rainier HPs, and shaved 5 seconds off my bowling pin time. No problems, no kaboom, no malfunctions, no worse recoil than a warm 9... I find the recoil to be more of a push back than a sharp up-force. Then again, I just switched to modern isoceles for competition and that helped a bunch.
Oh yeah, you can fit 14 9mms in a 96 magazine, but that's a topic for another day...
Berettas in .40 do not have a Kaboom problem!?!?!?!?!
BTW, while you guys were arguing, I loaded up 150 rds of .40 using power pistol and Rainier HPs, and shaved 5 seconds off my bowling pin time. No problems, no kaboom, no malfunctions, no worse recoil than a warm 9... I find the recoil to be more of a push back than a sharp up-force. Then again, I just switched to modern isoceles for competition and that helped a bunch.
Oh yeah, you can fit 14 9mms in a 96 magazine, but that's a topic for another day...
- Status