I've often seen people rush to trash the 92fs as the military replacement to the 1911. I've also notice the trend of people not really racing to defend the Beretta. I've fired both and found both to have their pros and cons. I know those who swear by the 92fs. So I guess the question is why the distrust? Why do so many people distrust the 92fs as a replacement for the 1911? Ergonomics? Reliablity? Size? Power? Or is it just nostalgia? Remember this is in the context of a replacement for the military sidearm.
Colt 1911 vs Beretta 92fs, why the fight?
- Thread starter AAChang
- Start date
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Well, a little history is in order, seems like. The main reason (so I've read, in various sources) for the effort to change away from the Colt 1911 was that we were the only NATO country which did not buy any weaponry from another member country.
Further, all other NATO countries used the 9mm Parabellum as their pistol cartridge.
Basically, this meant that no U.S. firm could win the "competition".
Okay. Compare "then" with "recently". Then, we didn't have SWAT teams in city police, nor with the FBI. We didn't have all the specialized pistol shooters in the military. The pistol was sort of an afterthought, mostly used by MPs, etc.
Now, pistols are used in the military by special units, with high levels of skill. For all that I love Ol' Slabsides and the .45ACP for my own uses, the 9mm is easier to be fast and accurate on multiple targets.
I, too, have shot both the Beretta and the Colt. I prefer the Colt because of both aesthetics and some 50 years' experience with it.
Starting from scratch, and considering such things as magazine capacity and mission, I might well prefer the Beretta.
Aesthetics rather takes a back seat, in a military situation...
$0.02, Art
Further, all other NATO countries used the 9mm Parabellum as their pistol cartridge.
Basically, this meant that no U.S. firm could win the "competition".
Okay. Compare "then" with "recently". Then, we didn't have SWAT teams in city police, nor with the FBI. We didn't have all the specialized pistol shooters in the military. The pistol was sort of an afterthought, mostly used by MPs, etc.
Now, pistols are used in the military by special units, with high levels of skill. For all that I love Ol' Slabsides and the .45ACP for my own uses, the 9mm is easier to be fast and accurate on multiple targets.
I, too, have shot both the Beretta and the Colt. I prefer the Colt because of both aesthetics and some 50 years' experience with it.
Starting from scratch, and considering such things as magazine capacity and mission, I might well prefer the Beretta.
Aesthetics rather takes a back seat, in a military situation...
$0.02, Art
lonegunman
New member
I think the majority of controversy is with caliber, and not brand of weapon.
Swapping a 45 acp for a 9 mm is kind of like trading a footlong for a cocktail weenie, in the minds of a lot of people. This is the US, and bigger is always better.
If they had picked a G21 or Sig 220, i think there would have been a lot less interest in the matter.
Swapping a 45 acp for a 9 mm is kind of like trading a footlong for a cocktail weenie, in the minds of a lot of people. This is the US, and bigger is always better.
If they had picked a G21 or Sig 220, i think there would have been a lot less interest in the matter.
Well, I don't like the Beretta, but I try very hard not to trash it. I do like the 1911 (well, actually, the 1991 clones), but I try not to be blind to the fact that they aren't for everyone.
I had a 92FS, and couldn't hit anything with it at almost any range. When I decided to sell it, an ex-special forces brother of a friend bought it and I very soon realized that it was definitely me, not the gun!
I would have preferred that the US military stick with the .45 ACP, but I don't loose any sleep at night over the fact that they didn't. I don't think that a pistol is all that important to most military units, and if it is, they probably are allowed to chose what they want to use.
Casey
I had a 92FS, and couldn't hit anything with it at almost any range. When I decided to sell it, an ex-special forces brother of a friend bought it and I very soon realized that it was definitely me, not the gun!
I would have preferred that the US military stick with the .45 ACP, but I don't loose any sleep at night over the fact that they didn't. I don't think that a pistol is all that important to most military units, and if it is, they probably are allowed to chose what they want to use.
Casey
Freedom in theSkies
New member
I own one of each and I like them both equally for their own merits. I also have dislikes about each one.
I will say though, that the 92FS has never failed to chamber a round or fire it on demand.
"Art"
-When you're on the top wrung of the ladder looking down, there is nothing but smiles... When you are on the bottom wrung looking up, it's nothing but A-Holes...
Respectfully....
I will say though, that the 92FS has never failed to chamber a round or fire it on demand.
"Art"
If the U.S. firms converted an existing .45ACP pistol to 9mm, or started form scratch and designed one to be competitive with the offerings from manufacturers like Beretta or Sig, I think that an American owned company may have been chosen. They did'nt.
-When you're on the top wrung of the ladder looking down, there is nothing but smiles... When you are on the bottom wrung looking up, it's nothing but A-Holes...
Respectfully....
What? No person wil state the real "scare."
Before they changed the firing mechanisim to stop the slide in event of a failure, a number of Mod.-92's slides went back into their owners faces with some deaths.
Everything from bad temper/metalurgy to +p (basicly just Nato ammo which has an extra 10% power) ammo has been blamed.
Not a problem with recent production as far as I know.
I do believe the "rigged trial" story....do a search on the trials, much has been written...
Berretta aint bad, but we could have done better.
Before they changed the firing mechanisim to stop the slide in event of a failure, a number of Mod.-92's slides went back into their owners faces with some deaths.
Everything from bad temper/metalurgy to +p (basicly just Nato ammo which has an extra 10% power) ammo has been blamed.
Not a problem with recent production as far as I know.
I do believe the "rigged trial" story....do a search on the trials, much has been written...
Berretta aint bad, but we could have done better.
Freedom in theSkies
New member
That was the 92F... And I did not hear of any deaths...
The 92FS indicates that it is the Modified Slide/Frame model that captures the slide if the mechanism craps out.
Oh... My Beretta is a Model 92F... if it matters...
- And it's fired thousands of round without any problem whatsoever...CastleBravo
New member
Evidence anyone? 
Can you say deja vu? Man, here we go again! I, along with many of my cohorts, used the Beretta while serving our great country. It is a fine weapon and is serving us well. You are always going to have some problems with "range weapons". I never saw any catastrophic slide failures. Come to think of it, I didn't see any deaths either. As a private citizen, I have sometimes been addicted to the 1911. In my own experience, it has mainly been for nostalgic reasons. It took me a while to figure this out, but I finally did and I'm now a recovering 1911aholic. The reason it was not good for me was I could shoot almost anything else better. My stubborness made me stay with the 1911. I was becoming an old fart! Sometimes change is good. This is one of those times when change was a good idea.
Hmmmm...
I don't know diddly about the slide controversy, but I'm not buying into the 'death' claims, either.
I'm relying only on a bit of common sense, and a hobbyist's experience in watch repair. That common sense and limited experience tells me that there's only so much energy to go around. Expending it uselessly is bad juju. It would be like saying that if a watch mainspring broke, that legs were severed by the watch exploding. Sorry, there just isn't enough there to go around.
I have to believe that gun designers make autos with as much energy going to the bullet as possible, with only enough remaining energy to operate the mechanism to eject a spent casing and rechamber a round as necessary... no more, no less.
Designing a weapon that has so much force going to the slide to cause it to implant itself in someone's brains if the mechanism fails suggests that almost all the energy from the bullet would be going into the greater mass of the slide and overcoming friction from the operation of the mechanism.
That said, I have a real hard time believing that anyone died from a slide failure. But I have a long and distinguished history of being mistaken.
I don't know diddly about the slide controversy, but I'm not buying into the 'death' claims, either.
I'm relying only on a bit of common sense, and a hobbyist's experience in watch repair. That common sense and limited experience tells me that there's only so much energy to go around. Expending it uselessly is bad juju. It would be like saying that if a watch mainspring broke, that legs were severed by the watch exploding. Sorry, there just isn't enough there to go around.
I have to believe that gun designers make autos with as much energy going to the bullet as possible, with only enough remaining energy to operate the mechanism to eject a spent casing and rechamber a round as necessary... no more, no less.
Designing a weapon that has so much force going to the slide to cause it to implant itself in someone's brains if the mechanism fails suggests that almost all the energy from the bullet would be going into the greater mass of the slide and overcoming friction from the operation of the mechanism.
That said, I have a real hard time believing that anyone died from a slide failure. But I have a long and distinguished history of being mistaken.
The steady stream of trash about the M9 (the Army's 92FS) comes mainly from old foggies who believe that the 45ACP came down straight from the hand of God. It's true that there were some fatal accidents involving frame fractures of the first M9s (allowing the slide to fly back) but I read that they were only on the US made guns (not the Italian ones) and the US maker was not using the Al alloy formula recommended by Beretta. At any rate, that problem was fixed.
The reason for the Army's conversion to the M9 was driven by the military's needs (mission requirement) and nothing else. All the speculation about secret political reasons are horse manure. Evaluate these requirements and see whether you would choose the M9 (9mm) or 1911A1 (.45) for your standard issue sidearm:
1) New recruits have to obtain very high levels of accuracy in a very short time period. 9mm or .45 better here?
2) Combat scenarios involve multiple targets and require fast follow-up shots placed accurately. 9mm or .45 better?
3) Magazine capacity of 15 (9mm) versus 7 (.45) means you reload the .45 twice as often. Is the .45 worth it?
4) Grunts haul everything on their backs into the field (including ammo). Lighter ammo means you can carry many more 9mm rounds which means you survive longer. 9mm or .45?
The primary gripe is that the 9mm is not as "lethal" as the .45, but accurate shot placement is much more of a determiner of lethality than caliber. The Army could upgrade to .40SW or .45 if they considered this an issue, but they don't. They have the best weapon for their mission and their own data reflects this. The rest of the whining is from people who blindly follow the .45ACP bandwagon and long for the good old days.
The reason for the Army's conversion to the M9 was driven by the military's needs (mission requirement) and nothing else. All the speculation about secret political reasons are horse manure. Evaluate these requirements and see whether you would choose the M9 (9mm) or 1911A1 (.45) for your standard issue sidearm:
1) New recruits have to obtain very high levels of accuracy in a very short time period. 9mm or .45 better here?
2) Combat scenarios involve multiple targets and require fast follow-up shots placed accurately. 9mm or .45 better?
3) Magazine capacity of 15 (9mm) versus 7 (.45) means you reload the .45 twice as often. Is the .45 worth it?
4) Grunts haul everything on their backs into the field (including ammo). Lighter ammo means you can carry many more 9mm rounds which means you survive longer. 9mm or .45?
The primary gripe is that the 9mm is not as "lethal" as the .45, but accurate shot placement is much more of a determiner of lethality than caliber. The Army could upgrade to .40SW or .45 if they considered this an issue, but they don't. They have the best weapon for their mission and their own data reflects this. The rest of the whining is from people who blindly follow the .45ACP bandwagon and long for the good old days.
To Everyone:
I read about those incidents a while ago, the shocking thing was where I read it, "Guns and Ammo"...I know, I know...But these guys practicaly work for the industry....RARELY do they report anything bad... and they wrotwe about a marine who was taken out by a slide failure after 3000 round on an M-9. ( this is aside from two seals) It seems the early locking block was of poor manufacure... American Handgunner suposedly had an article on this as well but I cannot acess it's archives cause I am not a member...
In my search for the truth I have found some good sites..
So far the good the bad and the ugly on the M-9/92f/s
http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/mg.html
http://www.pistolsmith.com/viewtopic.php?topic=1746&forum=26&17
http://beretta.squawk.com/technical/armclass.htm
Why are all you Beretta owners so defensive? "many people dont like change" How old dya' think I am? I am not a beretta "enemy" , I have owned two Colt .45's, true enough...but I dont presently own any ACP pistols.
I read about those incidents a while ago, the shocking thing was where I read it, "Guns and Ammo"...I know, I know...But these guys practicaly work for the industry....RARELY do they report anything bad... and they wrotwe about a marine who was taken out by a slide failure after 3000 round on an M-9. ( this is aside from two seals) It seems the early locking block was of poor manufacure... American Handgunner suposedly had an article on this as well but I cannot acess it's archives cause I am not a member...
In my search for the truth I have found some good sites..
So far the good the bad and the ugly on the M-9/92f/s
http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/mg.html
http://www.pistolsmith.com/viewtopic.php?topic=1746&forum=26&17
http://beretta.squawk.com/technical/armclass.htm
Why are all you Beretta owners so defensive? "many people dont like change" How old dya' think I am?
I am not a beretta "enemy" , I have owned two Colt .45's, true enough...but I dont presently own any ACP pistols.I am only writing of my experience with the Beretta, not as an owner or fan. If I saw "real" evidence I would believe it, but I have not. I served 3 years in the Army and never saw or heard any of these stories. That's not to say it's not true, that just means I haven't seen evidence of this happening. So far, all I've heard was a bunch oh second- hand information. If you believe everything you read on the internet, then maybe the person you chatted with last night was really a 21 year old beautiful blonde with D-cups.
Lots of parallels between the M-16 replacing the M-14 here too. I was in the Marines for the transition from .45 to 9mm, and I can say that caliber was a HUGE issue. We'd already heard of slide failures in the Beretta at that point (1986), and once those kinds of things start becoming known, they tarnish a weapons image forever.
Just like when the M16 was introduced. The M14 is a fine weapon, (better than a M16 in my opinion), but when the M16 started having all kinds of jammming problems and Marines were getting killed because of them (read: _OPERATION BUFFALO_) it's image is tarnished for a long, long time. Couple that with the fact that the .223 is a teenie weenie bullet compared to the mighty 7.62 and the M14 takes on divine status. There really was nothing ever wrong with the M14, so why get rid of it?
So the military wants to replace the equally divine 1911 with another teenie weenie bullet, and on top of that the slides are busting Marine cheek-bones, and it's instant animosity towards the replacement M9.
If G.W.B. calls me back to hunt Osama, I'm going to take an M14 and a 1911 if I can, but the M16 and M9 are excellent and reliable weapons that I would feel well armed with.
Tom
Just like when the M16 was introduced. The M14 is a fine weapon, (better than a M16 in my opinion), but when the M16 started having all kinds of jammming problems and Marines were getting killed because of them (read: _OPERATION BUFFALO_) it's image is tarnished for a long, long time. Couple that with the fact that the .223 is a teenie weenie bullet compared to the mighty 7.62 and the M14 takes on divine status. There really was nothing ever wrong with the M14, so why get rid of it?
So the military wants to replace the equally divine 1911 with another teenie weenie bullet, and on top of that the slides are busting Marine cheek-bones, and it's instant animosity towards the replacement M9.
If G.W.B. calls me back to hunt Osama, I'm going to take an M14 and a 1911 if I can, but the M16 and M9 are excellent and reliable weapons that I would feel well armed with.
Tom
Master Blaster
New member
Horse Manure
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but I read that they were only on the US made guns (not the Italian ones) and the US maker was not using the Al alloy formula recommended by Beretta. At any rate, that problem was fixed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh the slide broke, its made out of stainless steel not aluminum, the frame is made from aluminum.
I wonder if the folks who keep repeating the story,
(not a navy seal till you eat italian steel?),
have ever seen a Beretta taken down.
If the slide broke and flew off the frame wouldn't the barrel come off with it?, that means that the locking block and barrel lugs disintegrated, and the frame also partially disintegrated in order to release the barrel and locking block so the slide could fly off.
To overcome the spring and the locking block and frame lugs it must have been some Hellaciously powerful 9mm ammo, then to launch the slide with enough force to pulverize a head on a Navy seal, ??????????? Now the story I heard ( 10 years ago) was that they got a bruise or knocked out a tooth.
I think this story is one of those urban legends it gets bigger every time its retold.
I'm sure that the 9mm ammo used by the seals,
if it was that powerfull, would have blown the chamber on the barrel up before it launched the slide with supersonic force.
Of course it could have been some .50 BMG ammo that got mixed in with the 9mm.
The laws of Physics do also apply to Italian steel even on Berettas
By the way I own a 92 and a colt .45 on any given day I can shoot either one better than the other. I like them both.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but I read that they were only on the US made guns (not the Italian ones) and the US maker was not using the Al alloy formula recommended by Beretta. At any rate, that problem was fixed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh the slide broke, its made out of stainless steel not aluminum, the frame is made from aluminum.
I wonder if the folks who keep repeating the story,
(not a navy seal till you eat italian steel?),
have ever seen a Beretta taken down.
If the slide broke and flew off the frame wouldn't the barrel come off with it?, that means that the locking block and barrel lugs disintegrated, and the frame also partially disintegrated in order to release the barrel and locking block so the slide could fly off.
To overcome the spring and the locking block and frame lugs it must have been some Hellaciously powerful 9mm ammo, then to launch the slide with enough force to pulverize a head on a Navy seal, ??????????? Now the story I heard ( 10 years ago) was that they got a bruise or knocked out a tooth.
I think this story is one of those urban legends it gets bigger every time its retold.
I'm sure that the 9mm ammo used by the seals,
if it was that powerfull, would have blown the chamber on the barrel up before it launched the slide with supersonic force.
Of course it could have been some .50 BMG ammo that got mixed in with the 9mm.
The laws of Physics do also apply to Italian steel even on Berettas
By the way I own a 92 and a colt .45 on any given day I can shoot either one better than the other. I like them both.