Beretta, HK, or Walther?
- Thread starter sundance43.5
- Start date
P99 proofmarks
There were only about 3000 P99s made this way. Walther was having trouble keeping up with demand so they had SW help them keep up. If you do go the P99 route, make sure to look for the "N" under the German eagle on the rear right part of the slide.
If a P99 is missing the "N", its not a genuine German made Walther.
There were only about 3000 P99s made this way. Walther was having trouble keeping up with demand so they had SW help them keep up. If you do go the P99 route, make sure to look for the "N" under the German eagle on the rear right part of the slide.
If a P99 is missing the "N", its not a genuine German made Walther.
As I said in my original post, I'm not accusing anyone in particular of lying. All I want is to see one webpage, scanned document, magazine article, etc. showing a Beretta suffering from a locking block failure. The way people talk about this is almost as bad as the Glock .40 kB myth.
.357SIG,
Oh yeah, those Kbs happen all the time, it's a well known fact, blah blah blah. What's that? Have I ever seen one? Uhh. . . no, but I do have a friend who's cousin's aunt's friend's daughter had a son who had it happen to him once. He told me all about how terrible the GLOCKs are.
Kidding!
Shake
Oh yeah, those Kbs happen all the time, it's a well known fact, blah blah blah. What's that? Have I ever seen one? Uhh. . . no, but I do have a friend who's cousin's aunt's friend's daughter had a son who had it happen to him once. He told me all about how terrible the GLOCKs are.
Kidding!
Shake
sundance43.5
New member
Shake, I think you misinterpreted .357Sig's post. He was stating that the Glock 40kb's are a big myth.
Chris
Chris
As far as the Glock kB's, I wasn't present when it happened, but I got to see the results from the gun that kB'd. It wasn't pretty, the slide was all bulged out and the barrel couldn't be removed from the slide. The frame took it fairly well. A chunk of plastic had blown out above the trigger. The magazine had apparently been blown out the magazine well when it happened. The person shooting the gun was using standard factory ammo.
RIGHT-ON!
Handy- All of your "war stories" could be traced to older 92s. As GSB has quoted above, Military 92s have broken and have continued to break. This was addressed by Beretta with design upgrades with the blocks and slides as well as the firing pin lock levers, trigger bar springs and trigger return springs. ALL of these issues have been addressed by Beretta and these parts have been upgraded/ beefed up. The weakness in these areas were not apparent until
1.)heavy usage by U.S. Military personnel w/92F
2.)introduction of 40 S&W verson (96F)
There were significant issues with the durability of the Beretta design. I believe Beretta has tried to address all of these weaknesses. But, as someone on this thread said, EVERY design has a weakness. And I agree.
When and if you armchair warriors go to places like Thunder Ranch, FLETC (if you have to ask, you shouldnt know) or any one of the many SERIOUS training facilities, interview the rangemasters at these places. They will tell you they have seen ALL types of weapons break. ALL types of weapons jam and malfunction. The ones that malfunction the least are: Berettas!
As a die-hard Beretta fan, I too must admit for sheer durability, the H&K is the way to go. An aluminum frame cannot compete with polymer.
How many people have the time and or money to shoot that much with ONE pistol? Answer: NOT MANY AT ALL!I see here on TFL that many people jump to conclusions without throughly READING the threads. Lets all take a deep breath and RELAX and read SLOWLY and CAREFULLY! If this is too dificult for some of us, well there is always night school!
MP5- "I see here on TFL that many people jump to conclusions without throughly READING the threads. Lets all take a deep breath and RELAX and read SLOWLY and CAREFULLY! If this is too dificult for some of us, well there is always night school!"
Speaking of reading carefully, you'll see that most of my "war stories" have dates in the late '90s. After the initial failures, where several people were seriously injured, all the military M9s were exchanged for 92FS types, so no one else would get hurt. I believe the Marine failures in 1997 are probably the slides locking up against the extra FS slide reinforcement. There are no 92F's in the military system any more!
I have stated from the beginning that the 92 is a very RELIABLE design, as experienced by the "professionals" at Thunder Ranch. I have also repeatedly stated that the 92 isn't a particulary DURABLE design, as experienced by the not-so-professionals I have worked with in the Marines, Seals and SF.
Durability and reliability are different. A durable pistol might jam every hundred rounds but never wear out. A reliable pistol may never fail until it breaks, which could be in as little as 20,000 rounds.
I opinioned at the beginning, based on close associate's personal experience, that if you have several excellent designs to choose from that offer outstanding accuarcy and reliability, the private owner should consider one that will last his lifetime. I personally will shoot in excess of 50,000 rounds in all the weapons I keep over the next 40 years. All the models I own will stand up to that. If you don't expect to live that long or shoot that much and have big hands, the 92 is also ideal.
If this is what I get for saying that the 92 isn't as durable as the HK product and defending that point of view with my friend's first hand experiences, I probably should stop having any opinions at all.
Speaking of reading carefully, you'll see that most of my "war stories" have dates in the late '90s. After the initial failures, where several people were seriously injured, all the military M9s were exchanged for 92FS types, so no one else would get hurt. I believe the Marine failures in 1997 are probably the slides locking up against the extra FS slide reinforcement. There are no 92F's in the military system any more!
I have stated from the beginning that the 92 is a very RELIABLE design, as experienced by the "professionals" at Thunder Ranch. I have also repeatedly stated that the 92 isn't a particulary DURABLE design, as experienced by the not-so-professionals I have worked with in the Marines, Seals and SF.
Durability and reliability are different. A durable pistol might jam every hundred rounds but never wear out. A reliable pistol may never fail until it breaks, which could be in as little as 20,000 rounds.
I opinioned at the beginning, based on close associate's personal experience, that if you have several excellent designs to choose from that offer outstanding accuarcy and reliability, the private owner should consider one that will last his lifetime. I personally will shoot in excess of 50,000 rounds in all the weapons I keep over the next 40 years. All the models I own will stand up to that. If you don't expect to live that long or shoot that much and have big hands, the 92 is also ideal.
If this is what I get for saying that the 92 isn't as durable as the HK product and defending that point of view with my friend's first hand experiences, I probably should stop having any opinions at all.
Handy-The last thing I would want is to insult someone into thinking that they shouldn't have an opinion on anything discussed here at TFL. Various opinions are what it's all about here at TFL. We learn from some, we disagree with some and we even agree on issues (sometimes).
I see you are new to TFL. Welcome! And re-reading my thread I can see you interpreting it as regarding you or your associates as non-professionals. This was not my intention. I separated that comment about "professionals" in a different paragraph. This was directed at other thread writers. That's the problem about email/BBS, the personal intention with emphasis on expression is lost.
My point about Military 92s is they don't have the Brigadier type slide (AKA Elite/Brigadier models). They probably don't have the other upgrades as well. The military "upgrades as it breaks." If you were in the military you know this is usually the tradition. Beretta unfortunately did not address the locking blocking issue until the mid 90's. (I'm not sure of the exact date) That's not to stay the Marine pistols you are talking about in 97 were upgraded with the parts I had mentioned previously, including the new locking blocks. Do you have proof otherwise? Out of curiosity, what makes you believe this?:
This brings us to another issue.
If we are going to get technical here yes, there are no 92F models in the military. I was using this terminology loosely referring to the M9 pistol. I stand corrected. However, the difference between a 92F and a 92FS is a notch was milled in the slide and a modified hammer pin was added to prevent a shooter from "tasting Italian steel" should a slide fail. The past slide failures were traced to:
1. Extra heavy "Proof" Loads that were loaded extremely hot way over NATO specs.
2. Metallurgy problem with the slides (Beretta's fault)
These failures were blown way out of proportion by the media. (Not to say people didnt get hurt)
The slides were not reinforced until the INS contract with the INS/US Border Patrol (Brigadier design). Beretta then marketed this design to the civilian market with the Elite models. A needed design upgrade to a great service weapon (especially in .40).
I do agree that the H&K design is a more durable design. Polymer frame and all. Absolutely! I have contacts in the U.S. Border Patrol and they tell me the INS has tested the HK Compact in .40 against the 96FS Brigadier (their standard sidearm) Not only is the HK more durable, it was also found to be more reliable that the Beretta. Thus the INS has adopted the HK as well.
Remember, you are basing your opinion on somone else's experiences with military 92FSs/non-Brigadier design. (You did not disclose whether or not your friend Emmit was using a Brigadier design or a plain 92FS) Have you shot the newer Beretta pistols? My point is, is don't slam it if you haven't tried it personally. Beretta IMO has made strides in making their 92 a more durable pistol. More durable than the weapons currently in service in the U.S. Military today. More durable than civilian 92FSs five years ago. Durable enough for 99% of the users out there. And Yes, it needed the re-engineering.
We agree on most of what is discussed here. Can we agree to disagree? And dont take things so personally. With all that stress and strain you might not live long enough to shoot all you handguns in excess of 50,000 rounds over the next 40 years!
I see you are new to TFL. Welcome! And re-reading my thread I can see you interpreting it as regarding you or your associates as non-professionals. This was not my intention. I separated that comment about "professionals" in a different paragraph. This was directed at other thread writers. That's the problem about email/BBS, the personal intention with emphasis on expression is lost.
My point about Military 92s is they don't have the Brigadier type slide (AKA Elite/Brigadier models). They probably don't have the other upgrades as well. The military "upgrades as it breaks." If you were in the military you know this is usually the tradition. Beretta unfortunately did not address the locking blocking issue until the mid 90's. (I'm not sure of the exact date) That's not to stay the Marine pistols you are talking about in 97 were upgraded with the parts I had mentioned previously, including the new locking blocks. Do you have proof otherwise? Out of curiosity, what makes you believe this?:
This brings us to another issue.
If we are going to get technical here yes, there are no 92F models in the military. I was using this terminology loosely referring to the M9 pistol. I stand corrected. However, the difference between a 92F and a 92FS is a notch was milled in the slide and a modified hammer pin was added to prevent a shooter from "tasting Italian steel" should a slide fail. The past slide failures were traced to:
1. Extra heavy "Proof" Loads that were loaded extremely hot way over NATO specs.
2. Metallurgy problem with the slides (Beretta's fault)
These failures were blown way out of proportion by the media. (Not to say people didnt get hurt)
The slides were not reinforced until the INS contract with the INS/US Border Patrol (Brigadier design). Beretta then marketed this design to the civilian market with the Elite models. A needed design upgrade to a great service weapon (especially in .40).
You sarcasm is noted. Who stated the 92 is more durable than the H&K?
I do agree that the H&K design is a more durable design. Polymer frame and all. Absolutely! I have contacts in the U.S. Border Patrol and they tell me the INS has tested the HK Compact in .40 against the 96FS Brigadier (their standard sidearm) Not only is the HK more durable, it was also found to be more reliable that the Beretta. Thus the INS has adopted the HK as well.
Remember, you are basing your opinion on somone else's experiences with military 92FSs/non-Brigadier design. (You did not disclose whether or not your friend Emmit was using a Brigadier design or a plain 92FS) Have you shot the newer Beretta pistols? My point is, is don't slam it if you haven't tried it personally. Beretta IMO has made strides in making their 92 a more durable pistol. More durable than the weapons currently in service in the U.S. Military today. More durable than civilian 92FSs five years ago. Durable enough for 99% of the users out there. And Yes, it needed the re-engineering.
We agree on most of what is discussed here. Can we agree to disagree? And dont take things so personally. With all that stress and strain you might not live long enough to shoot all you handguns in excess of 50,000 rounds over the next 40 years!
inGobwetrust
New member
"(if you have to ask, you shouldn't know)"
MP-5,
Please tell me you're just being flippant and you're really not that arrogant!
MP-5,
Please tell me you're just being flippant and you're really not that arrogant!
Handy
To answer some questions:
I've fired a 92 on four occasions, one of which was qualifying Expert. I have tried the weapon, so I do know that it's accurate and huge and I was unable to reach the controls. Shooting the weapon had no effect on my opinion of it's durability as I shot under 200 rounds on all occasions. I would think you would have to shoot tens of thousands to have a first person opinion on long term durability. Anything else is like trying whiskey once and forming an opinion about liver scerocis. Therefore, I bow to the experience of others.
Emmet's 92 has a standard slide. Does this have some bearing on the barrel failure?
It is important for everyone to understand that the military is slow to upgrade to better designs, but absolutely does not allow dangerous gear to remain in the system when there is an alternative available. There are still M-16A1s and M-14s out there, but there are NO, and there have been NO 92F's in the armories since the recall. The Marines in 1996 were absolutely using 92FS guns, and they were breaking. How, exactly, I can only guess, but the results are instructive enough. My unit bought only M11's.
From even the pro-Beretta camp there seems to be some agreement that only the reinforced Brigadier or Elite are actually recommended. What does that mean?
The original poster asked for a simple recommendation. I think that if you state a preference you should base that preference on something concrete, rather than "MY GLOCK ROCKS!!!". To that end I brought up 92 long term durability. Myself and others have been defending the generalization and specifics against a constantly shifting debate that seems to have no core. Going back to the original question, what are you recommending and why? Recommending a pistol because the problems with it are known but not perfectly quantified is silly. If there is a downside, what is the up? What does the 92 offer? Or does it all just come back to Mel Gibson? That question has never been answered here.
This doesn't and shouldn't stress me out. I love a good logical debate on issues that aren't black and white. I think those following this thread will see the tone, knowledge base and logic of the various posters and find the answers. I kept on trucking just for fun, but the 92 debate really ended with Mithirium's posts. As to the Walther, only Walther 9mm owner's (or former owners) can really say how reliable it is. Take your pick or expand your search for the right 9mm.
To answer some questions:
I've fired a 92 on four occasions, one of which was qualifying Expert. I have tried the weapon, so I do know that it's accurate and huge and I was unable to reach the controls. Shooting the weapon had no effect on my opinion of it's durability as I shot under 200 rounds on all occasions. I would think you would have to shoot tens of thousands to have a first person opinion on long term durability. Anything else is like trying whiskey once and forming an opinion about liver scerocis. Therefore, I bow to the experience of others.
Emmet's 92 has a standard slide. Does this have some bearing on the barrel failure?
It is important for everyone to understand that the military is slow to upgrade to better designs, but absolutely does not allow dangerous gear to remain in the system when there is an alternative available. There are still M-16A1s and M-14s out there, but there are NO, and there have been NO 92F's in the armories since the recall. The Marines in 1996 were absolutely using 92FS guns, and they were breaking. How, exactly, I can only guess, but the results are instructive enough. My unit bought only M11's.
From even the pro-Beretta camp there seems to be some agreement that only the reinforced Brigadier or Elite are actually recommended. What does that mean?
The original poster asked for a simple recommendation. I think that if you state a preference you should base that preference on something concrete, rather than "MY GLOCK ROCKS!!!". To that end I brought up 92 long term durability. Myself and others have been defending the generalization and specifics against a constantly shifting debate that seems to have no core. Going back to the original question, what are you recommending and why? Recommending a pistol because the problems with it are known but not perfectly quantified is silly. If there is a downside, what is the up? What does the 92 offer? Or does it all just come back to Mel Gibson? That question has never been answered here.
This doesn't and shouldn't stress me out. I love a good logical debate on issues that aren't black and white. I think those following this thread will see the tone, knowledge base and logic of the various posters and find the answers. I kept on trucking just for fun, but the 92 debate really ended with Mithirium's posts. As to the Walther, only Walther 9mm owner's (or former owners) can really say how reliable it is. Take your pick or expand your search for the right 9mm.
Handy,
I hate to see this thread drag on any more than you do, but I have to respond to the question that you say has not been answered.
For a home defense weapon, the upside of the Beretta 92 are as follows (in no particular order):
1. Has to be classified as one of the most reliable designs on the market.
2. Easily accurate enough for a home defense weapon.
3. Magazines are readily available, and standard capacity mags are still plentiful and inexpensive.
4. Good standard sights.
5. Tactile and visual loaded chamber indicator (something many more modern designs don't have).
6. For a those with medium to large hands, the Beretta has great ergonomics (this is subjective, but I have heard many people comment on the nice feel of the Beretta).
Now you can proceed to tell me why the above listed items are invalid points, because after all, the Berettas aren't as durable as some other designs, right?
You continue to throw out snide comments about people choosing the 92 because of the military, or because of Mel Gibson. Is this a deliberate attempt to insult anyone who (you think) is dumb enough to choose a 92 as a sidearm? It smacks of arrogance to me.
If you really believe that "gun people" (as many of the people on this BB are, and serious ones at that) are stupid enough to purchase a firearm based on what they see Mel Gibson using in Lethal Weapon XXXVII (or whatever the hell number they're on now) You might be in the wrong place. If that were the case, there would be an equal number who would have sold their 92s after discovering in episode 562 of Lethal Weapon that a Kung Fu master can field strip a 92 before anyone can pull the trigger.
I can wholeheartedly recommend the 92 as a very good home defense weapon based on my above statements. Does that answer the question?
Shake
I hate to see this thread drag on any more than you do, but I have to respond to the question that you say has not been answered.
For a home defense weapon, the upside of the Beretta 92 are as follows (in no particular order):
1. Has to be classified as one of the most reliable designs on the market.
2. Easily accurate enough for a home defense weapon.
3. Magazines are readily available, and standard capacity mags are still plentiful and inexpensive.
4. Good standard sights.
5. Tactile and visual loaded chamber indicator (something many more modern designs don't have).
6. For a those with medium to large hands, the Beretta has great ergonomics (this is subjective, but I have heard many people comment on the nice feel of the Beretta).
Now you can proceed to tell me why the above listed items are invalid points, because after all, the Berettas aren't as durable as some other designs, right?
You continue to throw out snide comments about people choosing the 92 because of the military, or because of Mel Gibson. Is this a deliberate attempt to insult anyone who (you think) is dumb enough to choose a 92 as a sidearm? It smacks of arrogance to me.
If you really believe that "gun people" (as many of the people on this BB are, and serious ones at that) are stupid enough to purchase a firearm based on what they see Mel Gibson using in Lethal Weapon XXXVII (or whatever the hell number they're on now) You might be in the wrong place. If that were the case, there would be an equal number who would have sold their 92s after discovering in episode 562 of Lethal Weapon that a Kung Fu master can field strip a 92 before anyone can pull the trigger.
I can wholeheartedly recommend the 92 as a very good home defense weapon based on my above statements. Does that answer the question?
Shake